Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CLYDE LIGHTHOUSES ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

British Fair of Industry and Commerce, Manchester

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will arrange for exhibits of nuclear energy plant to be on show at the forthcoming British Fair of Industry and Commerce, which is to be held at Belle Vue, Manchester, in 1958; and whether, in view of the need to stimulate exports, he will encourage exporting industries to take part in the fair.

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir David Eccles): It is for the Atomic Energy Authority and the manufacturers of the plant to decide whether to exhibit at this Fair. Information about the Fair has been given in the Board of Trade Journal. If exporters judge it will serve their commercial interests I have no doubt they will show at Manchester.

Mr. Ellis Smith: In view of the importance of these exhibitions, and the obvious fact that they have the good will of the right hon. Gentleman and his Department, will the President consider writing to the Lord Mayor of Manchester with a view to making this exhibition as successful as possible? May I make it clear that I am not expecting a reply now?

Sir D. Eccles: I will certainly consider that suggestion.

Mr. E. Johnson: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he is aware that the view has been expressed by members of the Canadian Trade Mission that our goods are still the best in the world, that it would be in the best interests of Canada to buy them, but that we lag sadly behind in taking opportunities, such as that suggested by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), in making this fact known to our potential customers? Will my right hon. Friend do all he can to encourage industry to advertise more?

Sir D. Eccles: I think that the views of the Canadian Mission on salesmanship would be of great interest and value to our industry.

Raw Materials

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to prevent the speculative buying of raw materials in order to bring about the lowest possible price for raw materials.

Sir D. Eccles: No, Sir.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the President of the Board of Trade give further consideration to this matter? Is he aware that productive industry is in a very difficult position compared with its competitors in other parts of the world? If the hon. Gentleman accepts that line of reasoning as correct, has not the time arrived when we should do something to ensure that productive industry can at least be in the same position as its competitors in other parts of the world?

Sir D. Eccles: I found it difficult to understand the hon. Gentleman's Question, because one would suppose that the buying of raw materials would raise their prices rather than lower them. Certainly I want to do everything I can to ensure that British industry gets a fair deal in world markets.

Grey Cotton Cloth (Import)

Mr. Fort: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will impose an anti-dumping duty on grey cotton cloth now being imported from Communist China, in view of the increasing quantities being offered at cost-paid prices 6d. below those of efficient producers in Lancashire.

Sir D. Eccles: No application has been received for an anti-dumping duty on cotton cloth imported from China. Any such application will be considered but, as my hon. Friend knows, comparisons with domestic prices in the United Kingdom do not constitute evidence of dumping under the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act.

Mr. Fort: How can my right hon. Friend ascertain the home market price, or the alleged home market price, in a Communist country, where it is well known that these exports are sold at whatever price is needed to met some Communist plan, when they are sold in this country on a consignment basis and not on a true trading basis?

Sir D. Eccles: I think my hon. Friend will know that the Act says that if the domestic price in China cannot be ascertained, the export price to a third country or the cost, or estimated cost of production, of the goods can be considered by the Board of Trade. We have not yet had any application for an anti-dumping duty.

British Standards Institution

Miss Burton: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the work of the Consumer Advisory Council of the British Standards Institution is impeded by the non-co-operation of manufacturers; that, since January, 1955, none of the industries asked by the Council for Kitemark schemes has agreed to such a scheme; and if he will set up a committee to inquire into the advisability of granting additional powers to the British Standards Institution.

Sir D. Eccles: The Advisory Council is disappointed with the response of some manufacturers to its proposals, but the work that the British Standards Institution carries out for the domestic consumer is certainly not impeded by manufacturers generally. I see no case for setting up a committee to consider the grant of statutory powers to the Institution.

Miss Burton: We seem to be making a little progress. May I ask the Minister whether he is aware that the facts in my Question were stated by Miss Marghanita Laski in a recent letter to The Times, and that she is a member of the Consumer Advisory Council? May I ask the right

hon. Gentleman, in addition, if he is aware that the manufacturers of children's footwear have definitely refused to cooperate with the Council? What is the good of the right hon. Gentleman giving the Council £10,000 to do the job, and not giving it the authority to get on with it?

Sir D. Eccles: I think that the first job of the Council, assisted by the hon. Lady, is to make the public aware of what Kitemark schemes are. My impression is that they do not fully understand. When they do, I think that manufacturers will pay attention.

Nuclear Power Stations and Reactors

Sir J. Hutchison: asked the President of the Board of Trade what has been the value of exports over the last 12 months to a recent convenient date in respect of ingredients associated with nuclear power stations, of plants associated with nuclear power stations, and of nuclear power reactors, respectively, to all overseas countries.

Sir D. Eccles: No power reactors or associated equipment have yet been exported.

Peterlee (Industrial Undertakings)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the new town of Peterlee has fewer industrial undertakings than any of the other new towns; and whether he will, in these circumstances, make a further effort to induce firms about to embark on extensions to use the facilities of Peterlee for that purpose.

Sir D. Eccles: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on 30th July last.

Mr. Shinwell: Is not this most unsatisfactory? Surely the right hon. Gentleman will take into consideration the plight of this area and the need for some new industry. This is a rapidly developing area with a population now estimated at 11,000, which is expected to rise to 20,000 in the next few years. Surely something can be done to encourage manufacturers to go there.

Sir D. Eccles: I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman. We will, of


course, continue to try to get manufacturers to go there. The two firms which have been attracted to the new town now employ 660 workers and aim to build the number up to 850, which I hope will soon come about.

European Free Trade Area

Mr. J. Harrison: asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the inconvenience of arrangements for setting up a free market area for Europe, if he will issue an illustrated booklet, explaining the project and suggesting the possible difficulties that could be overcome by appropriate business reorganisation and changed techniques.

Sir D. Eccles: The proposals for a Free Trade Area in Europe were discussed in a White Paper published in February last and in an official explanatory booklet published in May. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave on 12th November to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith).

Mr. Harrison: Is the Minister aware—I am sure he is—that in the Midlands, particularly in the Nottingham and Birmingham area, many of our most important industries are organised in very small units with rather limited and sometimes primitive selling organisations? Could he not use his good offices to try to create some form of co-operative or communal selling organisations among these many small firms, which would help considerably?

Sir D. Eccles: That is an interesting idea which I am prepared to examine.

Mr. J. Harrison: asked the President of the Board of Trade what effect the initial workings of the European Common Market will have on our trade with the European mainland, in view of the arrangements whereby the Common Market will operate from 1st January, 1958; and what plans the Government have made to meet this situation.

Sir D. Eccles: The first tariff reductions among the members of the European Economic Community will take place a year after the Treaty of Rome comes into effect. The full implementation of the Treaty will be a gradual process over a period of 12 to 15 years. Her Majesty's

Government hope that a wider Free Trade Area will begin to operate at the same time as the European Economic Community.

Holland (Quotas)

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the President of the Board of Trade what restrictions exist in the way of quotas at the present time on Dutch imports into Great Britain and British imports into Holland; when the relaxation or abolition of these quotas was last discussed; and what action he intends to take with regard to them in the next 12 months.

Sir D. Eccles: Our trade arrangements are now with the Benelux Customs Union, not with Holland alone. Both we and Benelux have liberalised over 94 per cent. of imports from other Western European countries. Talks with Benelux about quotas in the small part of the field still subject to restriction have just taken place and increases for 1958 have been agreed on both sides.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that imported Dutch bulb quota rights are being freely advertised and bought and sold in this country; and whether, in view of the undesirability of allowing some distributors to benefit and some to suffer as a result of this quota scheme, he will consult with the representatives of British bulb growers and bulb distributors and others concerned as to the possibility of evolving some other method of controlling these imports until such time as the quota can be once again abolished.

Sir D. Eccles: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I have no evidence to suggest that allocations are being offered for sale on a significant scale. If there should be any reason to think that the practice is developing we shall certainly consult the trade.

Motor Cars (Damage)

Miss Burton: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, in addition to the cars for export found damaged recently at the docks, a number of other such cars have been found, on arrival at their destinations, to


have been damaged internally; what reports he has received from his representatives overseas; and if he will make a statement.

Sir D. Eccles: No, Sir. But as I said in reply to the hon. Lady's Question on 5th December, I should be glad to bring any evidence of damage to the notice of the manufacturers concerned.

Miss Burton: That is not a matter for the manufacturers or the S.M.M.T. Is the Minister aware that the union believes that this damage exists, that it is worried about its effect on the export trade, and that in Coventry attempts are being made to reach some agreement with the agents? Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that the employing side of the industry agrees with the union on this matter and wants an inquiry? Would he not agree that the export market for the motor vehicle industry is important enough to justify examining the matter?

Sir D. Eccles: If the union believes that damage exists, perhaps it would submit information either directly to me or through the hon. Lady, and we will examine it.

Japanese Patent Law

Mr. Peyton: asked the President of the Board of Trade what representations have been made by his Department in recent years to the Japanese Government on the subject of Japanese patent law; and with what results.

Sir D. Eccles: None, Sir.

Mr. Peyton: Will my right hon. Friend represent to the Japanese Government, or get the Foreign Secretary to do so, that the sort of commercial and trading sharp practices indulged in by Japan over many years have not only been damaging to British industry but are in the long term highly damaging to the reputation of Japan, and that it would serve a very useful purpose for other countries and for Japan in particular if there was in Japan a comprehensive patent law which would ensure fair standards of trading?

Sir D. Eccles: Japan is a member of the Industrial Property Convention. I have no reason to believe that the Japanese law fails to give the inventions

of foreigners the protection that the Convention demands. If my hon. Friend has any special cases in mind, I should be glad to look into them.

Trade with China (Civil Aircraft)

Mr. Collins: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Chinese Trade Mission inquired into the possibility of purchasing civilian aeroplanes of British manufacture; what inquiries he has received regarding the sale of such aircraft to China; and, in view of the present run down in the aircraft industry, if he will remove existing restrictions on the sale of new and second-hand airplanes.

Sir D. Eccles: Yes, Sir: and I know that the British civil aircraft industry would like to sell to China. Any exception to the present embargo, however, would have to be cleared internationally in the Paris Consultative Group. I cannot yet say whether we shall think it right to put any such proposal to our Allies.

Mr. Collins: In his further deliberations on this subject, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that Far Eastern airlines are not equipped solely with Russian planes, and so other countries must be supplying them? If B.E.A. wants to sell some Elizabethans, why should it be frustrated? Will the right hon. Gentleman use his utmost endeavours to ensure that this country's aircraft industry is placed at least on terms of equality with the aircraft industries of other countries?

Sir D. Eccles: I am very anxious to do so, but we shall have to discuss this matter with our allies.

Mr. Dugdale: I understood the Minister to say that he would not put forward proposals. Will he at least promise that he will put forward proposals although it is realised that they have to be discussed, considered and agreed upon finally with other countries?

Sir D. Eccles: It depends on whether it is thought that there are possibilities of using the aircraft for military purposes.

Mr. Jay: Can there really be any danger in selling second-hand civilian aircraft to China at present?

Weights and Measures (Regulations)

Mr. Jay: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government will now make regulations to implement the main recommendations of Part III of the Hodgson Committee Report on Weights and Measures.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): My right hon. Friend proposes to make regulations based on such of those recommendations as can be implemented in this way.

Mr. Jay: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there is a widespread public demand for action on these lines, particularly from women's organisations? Can he now tell us how soon he will introduce the regulations?

Mr. Erroll: The proposals will have to be discussed with the trade interests concerned, and we hope to be able to table the regulations within a period of about 12 months.

New Industries, Burnley

Mr. Burke: asked the President of the Board of Trade what investigations he has made into the purchase and closing down of Burnley cotton mills with orders on their books with its resulting unemployment; and what action he is taking to accelerate the introduction of new industries into the town as requested by the Burnley Borough Council in correspondence from the Town Clerk on 15th November.

Sir D. Eccles: I have called for a report from my Regional Controller on the situation in Burnley.
The hon. Member will know that the Board of Trade is building an extension for a factory at Padiham and intends to build a large factory at Burnley for a firm which manufactures motor tyres.

Mr. Burke: Is the Minister aware that the population of Burnley has gone down by 10,000 in the last few years, and that a little extra employment at Padiham will not meet the case? Would he agree that a deputation from the Burnley Borough Council might discuss the matter with his Regional Controller in the first instance?

Sir D. Eccles: Yes, Sir. I shall be glad to arrange for such a deputation.

Mr. Burke: asked the President of the Board of Trade what use is to be made of the Government-built Magnesium Electron factory near Burnley, which is now standing idle; if he will consider adapting it for some other manufacturing process or, alternatively, if the site can be cleared and made available for a new industry directed into the area.

Sir D. Eccles: A small part of the property is being used for storage, and some of the machinery and scrap has been sold. The rest will be offered for sale as soon as possible. I have no power to direct industry to any area.

Cotton Trade

Mr. Burke: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many mills in the Burnley area have closed down or are weaving out in the last two years; if he is aware that the closing of these mills has resulted in a large increase in the volume of imports from India and the Far East as Lancashire exports have declined; and what action he proposes to take to assist the Lancashire cotton trade.

Sir D. Eccles: Eight weaving mills in Burnley itself announced their intention of closing down during the last two years, but I am not aware of any evidence that this has been a cause of increased imports. I am in touch with the leaders of the industry about its problems including imports of Asian cloth.

Mr. Burke: Is not it clear from the steady rise of imports and the phenomenal drop of exports that there appears to be a definite policy of contraction of the Lancashire cotton industry in the interests of foreign manufacturers? Is not that so serious and important as to be a subject worthy of investigation by the right hon. Gentleman's Department?

Sir D. Eccles: I am in touch with the Cotton Board on that very subject.

Mr. S. Silverman: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to a very alarming report from the appropriate officer of the North-East Lancashire Development Area in which attention is drawn to the rapidly reducing population, extending over a long period, in the whole of this area, particularly since 1952, which is the very year in which the Government made it a Development Area? Will he bear in mind that, what with the credit


squeeze on the one hand and the European Free Trade Area on the other, the cotton trade is being subjected to increasing pressure and restriction? If the Government will not do anything to save the cotton industry, will they at least take some other industries into the area?

Sir D. Eccles: I have not seen the report, but I am grateful to the hon. Member for referring to it. I will look at it. What we have to study is the level of unemployment in all the industries in Lancashire.

Mr. Jay: In the circumstances, ought not the President of the Board of Trade to be making a major effort to bring new industries into the area? Will he visit it himself, if he has not done so already?

Sir D. Eccles: I have been there and my impression is that the growth of industry in Lancashire since the war has been remarkable.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

National Insurance (Employer's Contributions)

Mr. McKay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much profits were reduced for the year 1956–57 due to the contributions paid by employers, under the National Insurance Acts; what was the approximate total loss of revenue to the Exchequer in Income Tax, distributed Profits Tax, undistributed Profits Tax, and Income Tax on dividends; and what were the full contributions paid by employers.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): I would refer the hon. Member to the Written Answer which I gave him on 5th December.

Mr. McKay: That Written Answer says that the amount would be £95 million. Can the hon. Member explain the apparent discrepancy of £89 million paid in contributions by the other employers? Is it not correct that the amount indicated in that Written Answer assumes that the money is applied to undistributed profits? Would not the sum be much larger if it were applied to dividends?

Mr. Powell: The difference between the total and the £215 million is the amount of the contributions paid by employers who are not traders, such as public authorities. The figure of £95

million which I gave covered the entire tax effect of these allowances on all forms of taxation.

Greyhound Racing (Pool Betting Duty)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that ever since the inception of the 10 per cent. Pool Betting Duty on totalisators at greyhound racing tracks successive Chancellors have agreed that this duty is unfair, discriminatory, and penal; and whether he will take the necessary action in his forthcoming Budget to remove this tax.

Mr. Powell: I cannot trace the alleged statements nor can I anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

Mr. Lewis: Will the Financial Secretary take it from me that statements have been made in the presence of hon. Members from both sides of the House? Is he further aware that if he or the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a bet on a totalisator at a racecourse, he will pay no tax whatever, whereas if one of my underpaid hospital workers puts a bet on exactly the same kind of totalisator at a greyhound track, he immediately loses 10 per cent. in tax? Why should the poor and not the rich be taxed on their bets?

Mr. Powell: The answer to the first part of that question is "not without evidence". The second part of the question appeared to be loaded.

Overseas Earnings

Mr. Albu: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates he has made of overseas earnings from the operation of banks, insurance companies, commodity markets and other commercial activities in this country other than direct exports and shipping.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Nigel Birch): Direct earnings net from overseas of all forms of banking, insurance, merchanting and brokerage in the United Kingdom in 1956 are estimated to have been in the region of £125 million.

Mr. Albu: In view of the great interest in these figures from the point of view of economic policy and the very conflicting estimates made by different economists, will the Economic Secretary consider publishing these details in future balance of payments White Papers?

Mr. Birch: I will certainly consider the hon. Member's suggestion.

Mr. Jay: Can the Economic Secretary say how much of that sum was insurance?

Mr. Birch: I cannot give a breakdown of the figures. If the right hon. Gentleman wants a breakdown, perhaps he will put down a Question.

European Free Trade Area

Mr. J. Harrison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the position now reached in the negotiations for the establishment of a European Free Trade Area; and if he will make a statement.

The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): The Ministerial Committee set up to supervise and direct negotiations is pressing forward vigorously with its task.

Mr. Harrison: It would be only polite to thank the Minister for his reply. I want to direct his attention to the effect which the implementation of the Free Trade Area proposals will have on present Purchase Tax arrangements. It seems to me that once the Free Trade Areas proposals are implemented, there must be either a complete cessation or a drastic alteration of all our ideas about Purchase Tax. Will the Minister say what his opinion is on that aspect of the matter?

Mr. Maudling: In so far as that was a question, it did not seem to me to arise from the original Question.

British Petroleum Company Limited

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what decision he has taken in regard to a Government contribution to the loan being raised by the British Petroleum Company Limited, which will carry the right to convert to voting shares in July, 1958, and 1959;
(2) the percentage of voting shares held by the Government in the British Petroleum Company Limited; and what will be the percentage of Government shares after the conversion to voting shares of the £41 million loan now being raised by this company.

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any statement to make regarding the Government's intentions in respect of the British Petroleum Convertible Debenture issue announced on 2nd December.

Mr. Birch: Her Majesty's Government will not subscribe to the new issue. If all the new stock is converted in 1958 and 1959, their voting rights will be just under 51 per cent. They are now 55 per cent.

Mr. Stonehouse: While thanking the Economic Secretary for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware of the widespread concern about the expensive manner in which this loan is being raised? As the State has a majority shareholding in this company, why is there no State subscription to the loan, and why is it that the large profits which will be made out of this loan and the conversion to shares in the next year and the year after will be confined to private shareholders? Further, in the event of a further loan being raised with the right to convert to voting shares, will the Government continue to retain a majority of public shares in this concern?

Mr. Birch: The hon. Member has raised a number of points. I am not able, as he is, to foresee exactly what will happen in the next two years. The terms of the issue are a matter for the commercial judgment of the board. The arguments against Her Majesty's Government subscribing to the loan are very strong. The arguments are that we should have to finance new investment by Treasury Bills. That would be inflationary and entirely unnecessary and wrong. The question about what will happen in the future is purely hypothetical. The point is that at the moment we retain the control we now have.

Mr. Jay: Is the Economic Secretary aware that it is possible for the Government, like other people, to sell gilt-edged securities on the Stock Exchange and thereby raise the money? As this was a favourable investment from the Government's point of view and as there was priority for holders of B.P. ordinary shares, why should not the Government have subscribed to the loan in the taxpayers' interest?

Mr. Birch: I do not think that it is the duty of the Government to "stag" new issues.

Mr. Paget: May we take it that in the underwriting of this issue and its allocation directors of the Bank of England will receive the usual priority?

Bank Notes (Export by Post)

Mr. Currie: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, on 5th November, bank notes to the value of £5, enclosed as a gift in a letter addressed by K. A. Crawford, Craigaved, County Down, to Able Seaman J. McKnight on board H.M.S. "Hogue", were removed from the said letter and seized by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, King Edward Building, E.C.1; and to what extent the rules governing the export of currency to foreign territory are applicable to Her Majesty's ships.

Mr. Powell: Yes, Sir. The export of United Kingdom banknotes by post to all destinations, including sterling area countries and Her Majesty's ships on overseas stations, is prohibited.

Mr. Currie: While thanking my hon. Friend for his information, may I ask whether he will consider the possibility of returning the £5 note in question to Mr. Crawford? With the co-operation and assistance of his right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General, will he endeavour to bring the restrictive provisions of the Exchange Control Act, 1947, to the notice of those who send gifts to serving seamen? Will he further consider whether the restrictive provisions of that Act—which was passed by a Socialist Government—applying to Her Majesty's ships should now be repealed?

Mr. Powell: In this instance the money will be returned to the sender. I will certainly examine my hon. Friend's suggestion relating to ways in which more publicity may be given to this requirement. It is, I am afraid, necessary that this restriction should be maintained on Her Majesty's ships overseas for the protection of sterling.

Travel Allowance (America)

Mr. Rippon: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that the sterling is now undervalued in relation to the internal purchasing power of

the dollar in the United States of America, if he will now raise the travel allowance to that country.

Mr. Birch: No, Sir.

Mr. Rippon: While recognising that a great step forward has been taken this year in making the £100 allowance available, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend would agree that the real value of the £ in terms of internal purchasing power in the United States in relation to the dollar is about 4·50 rather than 2·80? Would he not agree that it would make a great contribution to our prestige and standing in the United States, as well as a contribution to confidence in the £, if the restriction were further reviewed?

Mr. Birch: It is true that £100 goes further in this country than it does in the United States of America, and that is equally true of a great many other countries, I may say. But, as my hon. Friend said, this was a step forward and it has been of great assistance, particularly to businessmen, but my right hon. Friend does not see his way to increasing the allowance at the moment.

United States and Canadian Loans

Mr. Rippon: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the Government's intention to pay this year's instalments of capital and interest on the United States and Canadian loans when they fall due on 31st December.

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the Government's intentions in regard to the debt payments due at the end of this month arising from the United States and Canadian Loan Agreement of December, 1945.

Mr. Cronin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, having regard to the circumstance that the December gold and dollar reserve figures will be diminished by about 190 million dollars, which represents the interest and capital payments due on the United States, Canadian and other loans, he intends to ask for deferment of these payments or make further borrowings.

Mr. Birch: My right hon. Friend hopes to announce a decision next week.

Mr. Rippon: While acknowledging that there is no question of default in


this case, will my right hon. Friend, in considering this matter, bear in mind that we are entitled to claim only seven such deferments in this century, and that if the deferment is claimed we shall have to pay interest on the interest? Is my right hon. Friend aware, furthermore, that the Government gave an assurance at the time that the new Agreements were entered into that it was not proposed to claim the major part of these deferments in the early years after the new Agreements? Can my right hon. Friend say further—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member has given quite a mouthful already to the Economic Secretary.

Mr. Birch: I can assure my hon. Friend that all relevant considerations will be borne in mind.

Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Glasgow

Mr. Hannan: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the unsatisfactory supply and variety of Her Majesty's Stationery Office publications in Glasgow; and if he will now consider establishing a sales branch in that city.

Mr. Powell: No, Sir.

Mr. Hannan: Does the Financial Secretary recall that in a Written Answer on Friday last he stated that the total sales, retail and wholesale, of these publications in Glasgow were at least equal to those in Edinburgh? Will he state the circumstances which justified the establishment of new offices in Birmingham and Bristol since the war but which did not justify an office in Glasgow, which is a commercial centre?

Mr. Powell: As the hon. Gentleman says, the sales are approximately equal in Edinburgh and Glasgow, but the maintenance of a Stationery Office shop in both cities would not be justified by the sales.

Motor Cars (Customs Procedure)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether this country will follow the lead given by other European nations in dropping the requirement of the carnet in respect of visitors bringing their cars here.

Mr. Powell: No, Sir; we have a much higher revenue interest and a large home

industry to protect; but further simplification of the system is being examined.

Mr. Shepherd: Is it not a fact that one of the countries which have granted the concession has an industry as large as ours? Why should we be regarded as the most sticky and stodgy of all nations in Europe in these matters? Would it not be to our economic advantage to give this facility to encourage tourists who wish to bring their cars to this country?

Mr. Powell: A very good deal is also at stake in revenue and protection—more than in the case of the country which my hon. Friend has in mind.

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why an accompanied motor car has to be examined separately by landing officers and waterguard officers; and what consideration has been given to altering the regulations to simplify the procedure at ports.

Mr. Powell: A recent review has established that the balance of advantage is against altering the present system, whereby the landing officer assesses duty on imported cars and the waterguard officer is responsible for the prevention of smuggling.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIRCRAFT PATROLS (NUCLEAR WEAPONS)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister what change in the international situation led to the decision by Her Majesty's Government, in conjunction with the United States Government, to place the United States and Royal Air Force bomber squadrons in the United Kingdom in a state of readiness as from 1st October.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister what representations he has received from the United States Government suggesting that the Royal Air Force be placed in a state of readiness in conjunction with the United States bomber force.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): The state of readiness of our air forces and those of the United States are matters for our separate respective Governments, though naturally there is close co-operation between us. No representations have been received in


respect of the readiness of our air forces; and Her Majesty's Government have made none to the United States Government.
Naturally it is the aim to continue to improve the state of readiness. The present state of readiness is a manifestation of that aim and is not connected with any change in the international situation.

Mr. Henderson: While recognising the duty of any Government to take steps to ensure that the defence forces are in a reasonable state of efficiency, may I ask the Prime Minister, in view of the apprehensions that have been aroused, whether he will give an assurance to the House that he will take the opportunity of discussing with President Eisenhower and the other N.A.T.O. leaders in Paris the urgent need to enter into direct discussions with the Soviet Government—either diplomatic discussions or Ministerial discussions—with a view to bringing to an end the cold war and the present armaments race which is endangering the peace of the world?

The Prime Minister: That is a very wide question, which arises only rather indirectly from this Question, but I will certainly give the assurance that all these vital matters will be discussed between me and other heads of Government as part of our duty at this forthcoming conference.

Mr. Shinwell: Do we understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the decision to place our bomber force in a state of readiness was on the Government's own volition and that there was no consultation in a highly important matter of this sort?

The Prime Minister: I should have thought that if we have forces, both the American and the British forces have a duty continually to increase their efficiency and all the time to experiment and work towards increasing their state of readiness.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, at any rate on this side of the House, we are delighted to hear that the equipment of the Royal Air Force has improved and that it can now be in an efficient state of readiness?

Mr. Shinwell: So far as I am concerned—I cannot speak for others—obviously

I raise no objection to our forces being in a state of readiness. What is the use of having forces if they are not in a state of readiness? I take no exception to that. What I want to know is this. There has been a good deal of talk about co-operation with the United States. This is a new situation in international affairs, and obviously the whole world is concerned. Has there been effective consultation leading to effective co-operation?

The Prime Minister: There are two levels of consultation, surely. There is, of course, close co-operation between the two forces on technical matters. On the much wider political questions which arose from the right hon. Gentleman's Question, that is, of course, a matter of much greater breadth and requires consultation between the heads of Government.

Mr. Lewis: asked the Prime Minister on what date he was first officially informed of the fact that United States planes were carrying hydrogen bombs when on security flights around the coast of Great Britain; and when these flights with hydrogen bombs first commenced.

The Prime Minister: As I have previously explained, the carriage of weapons is a normal feature of training and patrol, and I should not expect to be kept informed by the United States Air Force of developments in its programme as new weapons come into service.

Mr. Lewis: From that reply, may I take it that the Press reports that the Prime Minister did not know anything about this matter until after it had been raised in the House of Commons and until after these flights had been carried on for some time, are correct, and that the Prime Minister learned about the matter from Questions in the House?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman should not take anything of that kind for granted. I am not going to be drawn by him into discussing the extent to which defence preparations should be made public.

Mrs. Castle: asked the Prime Minister to what extent United States planes carrying hydrogen bombs on patrol in this country are also carrying the


apparatus which would enable the hydrogen bombs to become armed in flight.

The Prime Minister: United States aircraft carrying nuclear weapons also carry the apparatus for arming them. I have the assurance of the United States Government that the pilots have specific instructions not to arm weapons until they are directly ordered to do so in order to carry out an operation of war, and that in that event the arming would not take place until the latest moment necessary for the execution of the operation. I must repeat that such an order could be given only after agreement between the two Governments.

Mrs. Castle: Does not that Answer reveal that the Prime Minister gave a misleading impression to the House of Commons when he said there was not really any danger in patrol and training flights because these bombs were not armed? Did he not give the impression that the arming of these bombs was a long and difficult process and is it not now clear that these bombs can be armed in flight in a matter of minutes by remote control from the crew cabin? Does not this mean that the bombs are in fact amiable within a few minutes during patrol flight?

The Prime Minister: I do not think I gave any wrong impression to the House. I did my best to explain an operation. Remembering something of my older experience, I tried to describe the operation by saying that these bombs were in existence but were not fused, thinking of the experience we had with minor weapons which were kept in a certain position until fuses were put into them. This is exactly the same, except that I would say the fuse is a much more complicated and elaborate instrument than the older fuses of which I was thinking. I tried to give and did give an exact description to the House.

Mr. Mason: asked the Prime Minister if he will consider, as a first step towards easing world tension and creating the atmosphere for summit talks, the cessation of British bomber patrols which are carrying nuclear weapons.

The Prime Minister: I do not think that world tension would be eased by reducing the state of readiness of our bomber force.

Mr. Mason: is not the Prime Minister in favour of summit talks between East and West, provided that the atmosphere is favourable? Will he not take some positive action in this regard, such as removing this direct and terrific threat of hydrogen bombers armed in the air? Is not the Prime Minister aware that unless positive steps are taken in the direction of peace, these threatening attitudes will grow until war is inevitable?

The Prime Minister: That is another question. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman's personal view is on this matter of the deterrent. I understand that there are Members of the House who are against the policy of the deterrent. I do not think it is a majority of the House or even of the party opposite. If we are in favour of the deterrent and are to rely on the policy of the deterrent, the greater its efficiency the more likely it is to achieve its purpose, which is the prevention of war.

Sir J. Hutchison: Is not the difficulty that if attack came it might well not leave time for bombers on training flights to return to this country to become armed and then carry out their task?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION IN WALES (WHITE PAPER)

Mrs. White: asked the Prime Minister if he will now make a statement on Government administration in Wales.

The Prime Minister: I have written to the Chairman of the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire, with reference to the council's Third Memorandum, in which proposals were made for radical changes in the system of Government administration in Wales. My letter has been presented as a White Paper, and copies will be available in the Vote Office this afternoon.
The Government's cardinal purpose is to put beyond all doubt that Wales as a nation has a place of its own in the counsels of Britain as well as to frame a system of Government administration for Wales that can be developed to meet every modern need. The Government have come to the conclusion that the main proposal in the Third Memorandum that there should be a Secretary of State for


Wales with full executive functions and a separate Department covering a wide range of administrative responsibility will not prove to be the best way of meeting the distinctive needs of Wales. These needs will in our view be better met by retaining the arrangement under which the office of Minister for Welsh Affairs, with a seat in the Cabinet, is held in conjunction with that of Minister of Housing and Local Government. I propose, however, that the Minister for Welsh Affairs shall have the assistance of a Minister of State. This will create a stronger ministerial team for Wales than before; and the new Minister of State will be available to spend most of his time in Wales.
The Government are convinced that it is by practical measures—further devolution and closer co-ordination of Government activities—that the special needs of Wales can best be met. It has therefore been decided that a Committee of the Conference of Heads of Government Departments in Wales, under the chairmanship of the Minister for Welsh Affairs, will be established to ensure co-ordination of the study of economic development, needs and prospects in all parts of Wales.
Secondly, the principal Ministers whose functions cover both England and Wales have at my request been reviewing their arrangements for devolution of responsibilities to their offices in Wales, because the Government endorse the view that, where opportunity offers for improving administration thereby, devolution should be carried further.

Mrs. White: We have had a very long reply from the right hon. Gentleman and it is clear that, until we see the terms of his letter to the Chairman of the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire, it is difficult for us to comment on it. We fully understand that the repeated delay in making this statement—this is the third time the Question has appeared on the Order Paper—is no doubt due to the extreme paucity of Welsh talent on the benches opposite. May we know who is to be the Minister of State to assist the present Minister for Housing and Local Government and Welsh Affairs? May we also ask whether the Prime Minister realises that we take very strong exception to having this extremely important statement made today when the main

debate on Welsh affairs during this Session is to take place on Monday?

The Prime Minister: Of the several questions asked, perhaps there are two which are the most important. First, with regard to the appointment of the Minister of State. That is a matter about which I shall make a submission for approval at the earliest possible moment. Regarding the second question, I had hoped to help hon. Members in the forthcoming debate by having this long statement published and available today.

Mr. J. Griffiths: If I understood the right hon. Gentleman aright, he said that the White Paper would be in the form of a letter he has written to the Chairman of the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire whose Report caused consideration to be given to this matter. May I ask whether the letter conveys the final decision or statement of the Government to the Council and whether the arrangements for the debate will be such as to make it possible to discuss the White Paper? Will the Motion be to "take note," because the Prime Minister will realise that we have only a few days in which to consider the statement before the debate takes place?

The Prime Minister: Since the proposals had arisen from the Council of Wales, I thought the most courteous method was to make the views of the Government known through a letter to the Chairman. I thought it would be convenient to combine the courtesy of writing to the Chairman with the publication of the full letter, which is now available in the Vote Office, so that the two processes of informing the House and answering the Chairman could be achieved at the same time. The character of the debate will arise on the business statement. I am told it is quite possible that it will be in the widest terms.

Mr. Bowen: Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the Minister of State will have any executive responsibility for any Department other than that of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government?

The Prime Minister: He will have a general co-ordinating function. He will reside for the most part in Wales. But all the details of this matter would be


better discussed when hon. Members have had an opportunity to study the fairly long document which we have prepared and when the debate takes place on Monday.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: May I ask whether, as a result of the changes—the totally inadequate changes—which the Prime Minister has announced this afternoon, the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs is to have any additional executive powers? Or is the position—the highly unsatisfactory position—to remain as it is today where, so far as Wales is concerned, he is a Minister with Portfolio but without any power.

The Prime Minister: I think it would be better to discuss all the details during the debate. A number of proposals have been made for improving the administration in Wales. It would be better to go into this during the full days' debate, when they can be discussed.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMERCIAL AVIATION (RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT)

Sir A. V. Harvey: asked the Prime Minister if he will set up a committee to consider and recommend on the future of the country's commercial aviation as a whole, with particular regard to research and development.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir; my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply gave a very full reply on this matter on Monday, when he said that he was very ready to hear the views of employers and the leaders of the trades unions.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us are not happy about the composition or the strength of the Departmental Committee? Further, is he aware that if the rumours are true regarding cuts in research and development, mistakes that may be made will never be rectified in our time? Will my right hon. Friend give this matter his personal attention to ensure that everything is considered, including the views of his colleagues in other Departments?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I have a great personal interest in this matter

and I am satisfied—or, at least, I feel pretty sure—that the procedure by this form of Committee is far the best practical way to approach it. When the Committee has completed its work, it will make its proposals and all the Ministers will be concerned in judging them. I do not feel that it would push matters—indeed I feel that it would even delay them—if we set up another inquiry.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that aviation engineering is among the finest in the world and this country, through research and development, has achieved a foremost place? In these economies, will the right hon. Gentleman safeguard the position of this country in future by making sure that the standard of scientific engineering will not fall because of lack of research and development?

The Prime Minister: These are not altogether questions of economy, they are changes of technique and direction, and that is the problem with which we are confronted.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES AIRCRAFT (CONSULTATION)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Prime Minister whether he will extend the agreement he has reached with the United States Government for Her Majesty's Government to be consulted before United States bombers go into action from British bases to cover also action by United States bombers from bases in the United States of America.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. This is a degree of infringement of sovereignty which I should hardly venture to suggest, on a purely unilateral basis, to the President of the United States. Nevertheless, I feel sure that by the closest collaboration and consultation between the Governments something of the hon. Lady's purpose can be secured.

Mrs. Castle: Is it not a fact that when the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) was Prime Minister, he had an agreement with the late President Roosevelt covering the launching of atom bombs, not only from American bombers based here, but from American bombers based anywhere; because clearly, if atom bombs, or H-bombs, are launched from


America, this country is involved as immediately and closely as if they had been launched from bases here? In view of the fact that the H-bomb is an even more deadly and final weapon than the atom bomb, is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to show as much interest in the affairs of this country, and the interests of this country, as the right hon. Member for Woodford?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady is misinformed. What is called the arrangement my right hon. Friend made with President Truman was confirming and in pursuance of an arrangement made by Earl Attlee when he was Prime Minister regarding the American bombers based in this country. This is a suggestion that we should ask for an assurance that American arms not based in this country should be subject to the veto, I suppose, of the British Government, or even of the House of Commons. After yesterday's interchanges I am a little surprised that I should be asked to make that degree of interference with the sovereignty of another country; but I can say that so long as we have the close collaboration which we now have with the Administration in the United States the real purpose of the hon. Lady can, and will, be secured.

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister to what extent the Anglo-American agreement on the joint control of United States Air Forces stationed in this country applies to units of the 7th Air Division, which is part of the United States Strategic Air Arm and used for long-distance retaliation operations, refuelling in, but not based on, this country.

The Prime Minister: The understanding reached by Mr. Attlee's Government and confirmed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) deals with the use in emergency of bases in the United Kingdom. As such, it covers the use of the bases by aircraft of all types, including aircraft not permanently stationed in this country which may call at the bases for refuelling or other purposes, and also tanker aircraft stationed in this country that may be employed for refuelling other aircraft in the air.

Mr. Zilliacus: Is not it the function of the Strategic Air Force to operate at very

long range under the exclusive command of Strategic Air Force Headquarters in the United States? Does not that mean that if the United States becomes embroiled with China and subsequently the Soviet Union in the Far East, over Chiang-Kai-shek, Quemoy, or Matsui, or what have you, orders would then be given in accordance with Mr. Dulles's statement of 19th December that there would be no veto on American defence operations? Should not we be plunged into war without having any say whatever?

The Prime Minister: That is not the question which the hon. Gentleman asked. I should not think, if there were a war between the United States and China, that the Americans would find it very convenient to have their aircraft refuelled in Great Britain.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEWLY DEVELOPING TERRITORIES

Mr. Oram: asked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint a Minister of Cabinet rank with sole responsibility for economic and social relations with newly developing territories, both directly and through the United Nations Special Agencies.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. While I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's objects, I think the method he proposes would not improve, but rather hamper, the development of policies which already form an important part of the work of leading Ministers.

Mr. Oram: Is not this field of policy being tragically neglected? Since six Ministers are involved, is it not a case of "too many cooks spoil the broth," especially as some of the cooks are not very good?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has put forward his proposal in good faith. From such experience as I have, I can say that as this is a matter which concerns the Treasury, the Foreign Office and other offices, it is not a good plan to put up a Minister in addition. It is much better to operate through the normal cooperation of the Ministers of Departments.

Oral Answers to Questions — HYDROGEN BOMB TESTS

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the recently discovered fact that the explosion of even clean hydrogen bombs releases large quantities of radio-manganese, which remains alive for several months, and that the official estimates of the safe minimum of radioactive impregnation of human cells are at least three times too high, he will reconsider his refusal to suspend hydrogen bomb tests unilaterally, and will propose an agreement to ban tests internationally, with inspection posts, as a first step toward general disarmament.

The Prime Minister: Radioactive manganese is not invariably released in nuclear tests. Where this has occurred the amount and effects are riot such as to change Her Majesty's Government's policy on testing.

Mr. Zilliacus: Is the Prime Minister aware that American Navy scientists recently investigated explosions of the so-called "clean" bombs, and that the results were reported in the journal The Scientist and so were the biological researches referred to in my Question? The picture given was far more alarming than in the Prime Minister's reply. Will he not investigate this matter a little more closely?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that is really quite the case. Radio-manganese is not a fission product. Where it has been found to be released it has come not from the fission but from some equipment associated with the device. The physical half-life of radio-manganese is only 291 days compared to 28 years for strontium 90. Its life is very small, and therefore I would have said, in considering this Question, that there are almost minimal risks.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES NUCLEAR MISSILES (UNITED KINGDOM)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the fact that, on his last visit to the United States of America when agreement was reached to base United States nuclear missiles in the United Kingdom, no discussions took place on the question of political

authority responsible for ordering the use of such weapons, he will now seek further talks to discuss this matter.

The Prime Minister: The restrictions on the use of American missiles based in the United Kingdom will be similar to those placed on American bomber aircraft here.

Mr. Beswick: Does not the Prime Minister accept that, although the existence of these bombs may be important, the question of the use to which they are put is vastly more important? Will not the right hon. Gentleman answer the question which is troubling us, both as regards these future guided missiles and the present Strategic Air Force bombers? Within the time limit in which we are working, how can the two Governments come together and agree upon a decision before missiles or bombers go into action?

The Prime Minister: That is another problem. All I am saying is that both under the Attlee agreement and under the agreement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) it is not within the power of either Government to use the missiles or bombers without the approval of the other.

Mr. Beswick: Is not the Prime Minister dodging the issue? At the time of the Attlee agreement we were not working within this narrow time-scale. We are now dealing with a different category of weapons entirely. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman discuss this position when he was in Washington?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that the time-scale is very different. It is the character of the weapons which is different. The time-scale is not very dissimilar.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES AIRCRAFT (UNITED KINGDOM BASES)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Prime Minister if he will give to the House the principal headings of the agreement made with the United States of America in 1952 under which strategic bombers are now based in the United Kingdom.

The Prime Minister: In October, 1951, an understanding was reached between the two Governments under which the


use of the bases in an emergency was accepted to be a matter for joint decision by the two Governments in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time. This understanding depended upon no formal document, but was accepted as a mutually satisfactory arrangement. It was subsequently confirmed in the joint statement issued by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) and President Truman in Washington on 9th January, 1952.

Mr. Beswick: If there was no formal document is not this a matter which is so serious that there ought to be much more clarity than there is at present? Are we to understand, from what the Prime Minister said earlier in answer to Question No. 45, that the control of these machines based in this country is, in fact, a subject for discussion in Paris in the next few days?

The Prime Minister: That is another matter. I would just point out that this agreement was made by Mr. Attlee, as he then was, in 1948. It was not until October, 1951, that the understanding was actually made by him as to their use. Some two-and-a-half years passed before it was brought to the degree of an understanding. Then it was more closely defined after the visit of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford in the communiqué jointly issued by him and President Truman. Now the hon. Gentleman asks me whether it is better to rest on this understanding, which was perfectly clear, or to try to turn this into a kind of long, legal, treaty document. There are arguments both ways. Experience is that it is much better to rest on a close understanding, perfectly well understood and obviously honoured by both Governments, than to enter into long negotiations which may not have exactly the result that we would wish.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH TROOPS, GERMANY (SUPPORT COSTS)

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Prime Minister if he will inform the House of the outcome of the talks he has recently had with the German Foreign Minister, Herr von Brentano, with regard to support costs for British troops stationed in Germany.

The Prime Minister: Since this matter is under consideration by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisatin and the Western European Union, it was not appropriate for the German Foreign Minister and representatives of Her Majesty's Government to do more than exchange views on it during the former's visit to London.

Mr. Fernyhough: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will be as tough with the Germans over this matter as Her Majesty's Government are in relation to the employees engaged in the National Health Service? Will he make it perfectly clear to the Germans that unless they are prepared to pay as much this year as last year—£50 million in total, which still would leave some leeway to make up—we shall have no alternative but to reduce our forces in Germany to correspond with the amount by which the Germans have fallen below what we expect them to pay?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member has stated his view, but if I were entering negotiation with him I do not think I would find him a very good partner. A negotiation is a negotiation. We are talking to our friends and hope to reach agreement agreeable to both sides. We have our claims, which we believe in and which we shall put forward, but they have to be negotiated first through W.E.U. and N.A.T.O. We believe that with good will a solution to this problem is to be found.

Mr. Woodburn: Will the Prime Minister put it to the Germans that no self-respecting nation like the Germans would expect the British taxpayer to pay for their defence until they were able to defend themselves?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, but there are two quite different problems. There is the short-term problem. We have maintained, successfully up to now, that until the Germans make a defence effort of equivalent value to ours, they have a duty as good partners to help us in this matter. Then there is the quite separate problem, even when they have reached that point where they could claim that they were making equal contributions, the problem of exchange, because our troops are stationed in another country. Even if the money contributions on both sides are equal that makes a heavy


burden on the exchange, and that is a long-term problem quite separate from the short-term problem of the equivalence of effort.

DEFENCE (ANGLO-AMERICAN DISCUSSION)

Mr. G. Brown: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Defence whether he will make a statement on his negotiations with the United States Secretary of Defence.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I was very glad of the opportunity of making the acquaintance of the new United States Secretary of Defence, Mr. McElroy, and of having a general discussion with him of defence problems of common concern throughout the world. We had a most frank and valuable exchange of views on a number of defence questions. No negotiations took place.

Mr. Brown: The communiqué issued by the Ministry of Defence, when the discussions closed, told us that the right hon. Gentleman and Mr. McElroy discussed measures to give effect to the principle of interdependence and reviewed further the progress of the plans for supplying to Britain United States intermediate range ballistic missiles.
In view of the misunderstanding and complications over the stationing here of bombers, because the decision seems not to have been made very clear at the time, does not the Minister think that he ought to give us a great deal more information about the terms he is discussing with the Americans about the stationing here of what is only another method of delivering exactly the same weapon?
Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell us how far he has gone, as the communiqué says, along the road of agreeing to a base for stationing these missiles here, and at what stage will he lay before us the terms which are to govern their use, so that we do not have the same problem over them as over the H-bombers?

Mr. Sandys: I still repeat that no negotiation took place at this meeting. The right hon. Member raised two points: one was the question of closer co-operation and the other the question

of American rockets. On the first, I can inform the House—it is not a question of negotiation—that we reviewed the progress of the studies which are being made by our experts, the experts of the two Governments, of measures to give effect to the policy of closer co-operation which was initiated in the recent Washington talks by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister.
On the second point, we also reviewed the progress of the negotiation of formal arrangements for implementing the agreement in principle reached in Bermuda last spring for the supply to Britain of American intermediate range ballistic missiles, and we were glad to note that the negotiations were reaching a favourable and satisfactory conclusion.

Mr. Brown: May I press the right hon. Gentleman still further? Several times he has taken exception to the word "negotiations". He has used the words "agreement", "reviewed the progress" being made towards a conclusion and "reviewed the progress" arising out of the Prime Minister's agreement. In his last sentence, he used the word "negotiations". Is he trying to tell us that this was not a case in which he and his opposite number were sitting down to come to an arrangement and an agreement? If so, does that not involve negotiation, about, which we should be told? Or is it that the American was telling him what the Americans proposed to do? I should be reluctant to draw that conclusion, but if the right hon. Gentleman insists that there were no negotiations it is difficult to see what other conclusion he is asking us to draw.

Mr. Sandys: I do not think the right hon. Member perhaps heard correctly what I said. His Question asked whether I would make a statement on negotiations with the United States Secretary of Defence. I said in my reply that no negotiations had taken place. I am talking of two matters, one, the question of closer co-operation, and the other the question of the supply of American rockets to Britain. The question of principle had already been decided first at the Bermuda Conference, so far as the rockets were concerned, and, secondly, at the Washington talks, so far as closer co-operation or integration was concerned.
In the course of one day's discussions Mr. McElroy and I had a very wide field to cover. We had not time—and it would have been absurd if we had tried—to carry on negotiations on these questions. What we did was to receive reports on the progress of the negotiations which were taking place between the experts, officials and officers of the two countries, and, so far as the rocket agreement was concerned, as I have already explained, we noted that they were making favourable progress and that it was to be hoped that they would be concluded very shortly.

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that he has used a lot of words, but not told us very much. Never mind about negotiations. In these conversations between himself and Mr. McElroy, was the matter of concessions of a reciprocal character discussed?

Mr. Sandys: Concessions on what?

Mr. Shinwell: We want the right hon. Gentleman to tell us. Certain advances were made to the right hon. Gentleman by the United States Secretary of Defence. Did the right hon. Gentleman ask the Secretary of Defence whether he would promote more effective co-operation in the nuclear sphere, about which there has been a great deal of discussion? Could we not have a little more information without impinging on security?

Mr. Sandys: While negotiations of any kind are going on—[Laughter.] It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies opposite to laugh, but I made it quite clear that negotiations are going on. What I was asked about was the negotiations which took place between me and Mr. McElroy. None took place. During a period in which negotiations are going on, it is unusual for the Government to divulge a great deal of detail. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) paid me the compliment of saying that I had used quite a lot of words without giving away very much information. I thank him for it.

Mr. Brown: May I again ask the Minister to look at the terms of his own communiqué issued by his own Ministry and reported in The Times on Tuesday?

The Times stated that during the three days, Mr. McElroy and Mr. Sandys
… discussed measures to give effect to the principle of interdependence …
It then went on to refer to the missiles. Is the Minister really insisting that when the Ministry of Defence said that he was discussing the measures to give effect to the agreement he and Mr. McElroy were not engaged in negotiations? Why does he now deny that any negotiations took place when, on Tuesday, the Ministry assured us that he and Mr. McElroy had spent three days discussing the measures to give effect to the agreement? What is the Minister seeking not to tell us? What is he trying to hide?

Mr. Sandys: I know the text of the communiqué. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at HANSARD tomorrow he will see that I have already said, in reply to an earlier supplementary question, that we reviewed the progress of the talks which had been taking place between the experts of both Governments about measures to give effect to the policy of closer co-operation initiated in the recent Washington talks. Of course we did. There is no mystery about this. All I can say is that it would be an extremely inefficient way of conducting affairs if, when the United States Secretary of Defence was here for a very short time, passing through London, and we had a large number of subjects to discuss, we attempted to negotiate—negotiate; I am not talking about discussions—agreements about these matters. These matters are extremely involved. We have had two teams—[Interruption.] I am giving information to the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) and the right hon. Member for Easington, for both of them asked for information. We have had two teams of experts, one at the official level and the other at the scientific level, which have been discussing matters in very great detail with the Americans for a week at a time.

Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does not the Minister's answer come under the heading of tedious repetition?

Mr. Speaker: No, I do not think so. If I may say so with respect, I do not think the House will get very much more out of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Sandys: All I would say—in conclusion, I hope, Mr. Speaker—is that, if the same question is repeated, hon. Members must expect something like the same answer.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. J. Griffiths: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 16TH DECEMBER—A debate will take place on Welsh affairs.

The debate will arise on a Government Motion to take note of the Report on Development and Government Action in Wales and Monmouthshire and on the White Paper on Government Administration in Wales.

Consideration of the Motions to approve the Draft Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Benefit Amendment Scheme, and the Draft National Insurance Regulations relating to Mariners.

TUESDAY, 17TH DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Local Government and Miscellaneous Financial Provisions (Scotland) Bill.

Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.

Consideration of the Draft Police Pensions Regulations, and similar Regulations for Scotland; and of the Government of India (Family Pension Funds) (Amendment) Order.

WEDNESDAY, 18TH DECEMBER—Committee stage of the Import Duties Bill.

Consideration of proposed Amendments to the Standing Orders relating to changes in Standing Committees.

THURSDAY, 19TH DECEMBER—A debate will take place on foreign affairs.

FRIDAY, 20TH DECEMBER—It is hoped to adjourn for the Christmas Recess until Tuesday, 21st January, 1958.

Perhaps I might also say that the debate on foreign affairs is arranged on the understanding that the N.A.T.O. conference is finished so that Her Majesty's Ministers may be able to return

to take part in the debate. If there should be any likelihood of delay so that this is made impossible, we would initiate immediate talks with the right hon. Gentleman the deputy Leader of the Opposition and his right hon. Friends with a view to making alternative arrangements to suit the House. We should like to have the debate on that day, but I should like to give that warning.

Mr. Griffiths: Does the Leader of the House realise that we are very serious in our request that the Government should make every possible arrangement to enable the House to discuss foreign affairs before the Christmas Recess?

Mr. Butler: That is why I gave the warning. We shall immediately initiate talks if we see any difficulty arising.

Mr. Maude: In view of the extreme importance of the foreign affairs debate and the issues to be discussed, does my right hon. Friend realise that it would be very much appreciated, as only one day is to be given to the debate, if the rule could be suspended so that we might have at least an extra hour?

Mr. Butler: I will certainly consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it contemplated that the foreign affairs debate will be on global matters, or is it to be confined to the deliberations of and, presumably, a report about, the N.A.T.O. conference? The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that if it is to be a very wide debate on foreign affairs, covering the Middle East, the Far East, and a variety of other topics associated with foreign affairs, we shall not have time to discuss N.A.T.O.

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. If the debate takes place, for example, on the Motion for the Adjournment, hon. Members will be able to raise any subject they like. The Government are perfectly ready if any subject relating to foreign affairs is raised.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to a Motion on the Order Paper, signed by 138 hon. Members, relating to unestablished service reckoning for pension in the Civil Service?
[That this House takes note of the recent Report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service (Command Paper No. 9613) and the observations of the Commission in Chapter XV, paragraph 743, on the subject of the reckoning of unestablished service for superannuation purposes in the Civil Service, to the effect that there is no question of merit or principle outstanding, that it is in fact now common ground that it is right that unestablished service should reckon in full, that Parliament conceded that as regards service after July, 1949, by the Superannuation Act, 1949, that the Royal Commission were of opinion that the Superannuation Act, 1946, afforded a precedent for retrospection and supported the argument that if a certain treatment is right at one point in time it is also right at others, and that in the view of the Royal Commission the sole consideration was that of cost; and this House is of opinion that all unestablished service prior to July, 1949, of civil servants subsequently appointed to established posts should be reckonable in full for superannuation purposes (instead of one-half only) on the grounds put forward by the Right honourable Gentleman, the Member for Monmouth, in his speech to Standing Committee B on the Superannuation Bill, 1949 (Hansard, 10th May, 1949, Cols. 155–158), and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take the necessary action.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Government propose to take early action in the matter or will he name a date upon which the House may debate the Motion?

Mr. Butler: I cannot give any day, because all the days before Christmas are now allocated. What I can do is to undertake to discuss the matter with the Minister concerned. I cannot go any further than that.

Mr. G. Thomas: As the White Paper which we are to discuss on Monday will be published in ten minutes' time, does not the Leader of the House think it unreasonable to expect Welsh Members to discuss it, along with the Report about Governmental activity in Wales during the past year, when we shall have had no opportunity between now and Monday of getting together to consider the Report?

Mr. Butler: There are two matters to consider. One is the Annual Report issued on Friday, 29th November, which gave hon. Members time to consider it. This latter matter—to which the Prime Minister referred today and the outline of which must be in hon. Members' minds—Welsh hon. Members will be quick enough to apprehend when they see the White Paper.

Mr. Griffiths: May I ask the Leader of the House whether the Motion on Monday will be to take note of the Annual Report of the Council of Wales and Monmouthshire and of the White Paper, so that the House can have a discussion on that basis?

Mr. Butler: Yes, that is so.

Mr. Ross: May I ask a question about Wednesday's business and the proposed Amendments to Standing Orders relating to Standing Committees? May we be told when the Government hope to table their Amendments? If we are to have a proper opportunity to discuss and amend them, we shall not have very much time, because the Government have not even tabled their Amendments.

Mr. Butler: The Government listened to the recent debate and we propose to table our Amendments to the Standing Orders today so that hon. Members will see them as soon as possible. I might give the hon. Member advance information by saying that we propose that the Scottish Standing Committee, for the Committee stage of Bills, should consist of between 30 and 50 Members.
We propose, also, that the Scottish Grand Committee should have two additional sittings for consideration of specified matters relating exclusively to Scotland. These will be in addition to the six days already spent on Scottish Estimates.
The other matters will relate to quorum and the size of Committee, which are not so much connected with Scotland. I have given the hon. Member the outline of the Scottish part of our proposals.

Mr. S. Silverman: Reverting to the answer which the Leader of the House gave about next Thursday's business, has his attention been directed to a Motion on the Order Paper entitled "War and Peace"—
[That this House, having regard to various statements made in anticipation of the forthcoming conference of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation powers, solemnly declares that it will not endorse, ratify or implement any agreement which has in theory or practice the result of divesting the House of Commons of its control of foreign and defence policies or its democratic right and duty to determine for this country the ultimate issues of war and peace.]—
which is signed by a large number of hon. Members on this side, and to an Amendment thereto—
[Leave out from "divesting" to end, and add "Her Majesty of Her prerogative of determining, with the advice of Her Ministers, the foreign policy of this country and the ultimate issues of war and peace".]—
which is to the same effect, but with constitutional amendment of the wording, and is signed by a large number of hon. Members on his own side?
In view of the importance of the present developments and the anxiety and uneasiness in the House, will he undertake, even if the N.A.T.O. conference is not concluded, to ensure that the House will still be able to discuss international affairs next Thursday?

Mr. Butler: I could not undertake that if we had to adjust the date or hour there would necessarily be exactly the same business for Thursday. What I can undertake is to say that we shall have a debate on foreign affairs before we rise. I hope that it will be on Thursday, when all these matters can be ventilated.

Mr. Harold Davies: Would the Leader of the House be good enough to give an assurance that, if perchance, the N.A.T.O. conference has not finished by Thursday and, therefore, a responsible Minister cannot attend the debate, the House will have a chance of debating the conference and foreign affairs generally, even though we have to sit on Saturday in order to

have a responsible Minister present? This matter is one of paramount importance.

Mr. Butler: I do not know whether we should necessarily have to sit on Saturday in such an eventuality. I would undertake that we should like to have a debate of a sufficiently long period, with the responsible Ministers present, before we rise. I hope that it will be on Thursday. If it is not, we shall have to make other arrangements to have a debate.

Mr. Lee: In view of the inconvenience to Welsh Members, as expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), of using Monday next for a debate on Welsh affairs, could I help the right hon. Gentleman by asking whether he would substitute for that debate a discussion of the Motion, standing in the name of about 80 of my hon. Friends, regarding the Governments' attitude towards wage negotiations?

[That this House condemns the actions of Her Majesty's Government in abusing its political power by destructive interference with the established processes of collective bargaining in nationalised industries, and attempting to condition the minds of those who serve on Arbitration Tribunals to refuse applications for increases in wages, irrespective of the merits of such claims; and that it is convinced that a continuation of these policies will result in the breaking down of the negotiating machinery in these industries.]

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I think that we must adhere to the wishes of the Welsh Members.

Motion made, and Question put:—

That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

The House divided: Ayes 196, Noes 146.

Division No. 20.]
AYES
[3.54 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Balniel, Lord
Bingham, R. M.


Aitken, W. T.
Barber, Anthony
Bishop, F. P.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Barter, John
Bossom, Sir Alfred


Alport, C. J. M.
Baxter, Sir Beverley
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.


Ashton, H.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Braine, B. R.


Atkins, H. E.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Bidgood, J. C.
Brooman-White, R. C.


Baldwin, A. E.
Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)




Campbell, Sir David
Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Cary, Sir Robert
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Partridge, E.


Channon, Sir Henry
Holt, A. F.
Peel, W. J.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hope, Lord John
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Hornby, R. P.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Cole, Norman
Horobin, Sir Ian
Pitman, I. J.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Cooke, Robert
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Pott, H. P.


Cooper, A. E.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Powell, J. Enoch


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Profumo, J. D.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Redmayne, M.


Cunningham, Knox
Joseph, Sir Keith
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Currie, G. B. H.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Dance, J. C. G.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Renton, D. L. M.


Davidson, Viscountess
Kimball, M.
Ridsdale, J. E.


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kirk, P. M.
Robertson, Sir David


Deedes, W. F.
Lagden, G. W.
Roper, Sir Harold


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lambert, Hon. G.
Russell, R. S.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Sharples, R. C.


Drayson, G. B.
Leavey, J. A.
Shepherd, William


du Cann, E. D. L.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Duncan, Sir James
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Duthie, W. S.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. (Kelvingrove)
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Speir, R. M.


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Errington, Sir Eric
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Erroll, F. J.
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Stevens, Geoffrey


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Finlay, Graeme
McAdden, S. J.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Fisher, Nigel
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Storey, S.


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Gibson-Watt, D.
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Glover, D.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Teeling, W.


Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Godber, J. B.
Maddan, Martin
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Goodhart, Philip
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Gower, H. R.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Thompson, Lt.-Cmdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Green, A.
Marshall, Douglas
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Gresham Cooke, R.
Mathew, R.
Vane, W. M. F.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maude, Angus
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Mawby, R. L.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Gurden, Harold
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Wade, D. W.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Moore, Sir Thomas
Wall, Major Patrick


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Whitelaw, W.S. I.


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesfd)
Neave, Airey
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Nicholls, Harmar
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)



Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nugent, G. R. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Oakshott, H. D.
Colonel J. H. Harrison and


Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Mr. Hughes-Young.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)





NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hale, Leslie


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Cove, W. G.
Hamilton, W. W.


Benson, G.
Cronin, J. D.
Hannan, W.


Beswick, Frank
Crossman, R. H. S.
Hastings, S.


Blackburn, F.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Healey, Denis


Blyton, W. R.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)


Boardman, H.
Deer, G.
Herbison, Miss M.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Diamond, John
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)


Bowles, F. G.
Dodds, N. N.
Holman, P.


Boyd, T. C.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Holmes, Horace


Brockway, A. F.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hoy, J. H.


Burke, W. A.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hunter, A. E.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Callaghan, L. J.
Fletcher, Eric
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)


Champion, A. J.
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pncs, S.)


Clunie, J.
Gibson, C. W.
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)


Coldrick, W.
Greenwood, Anthony
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)







Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Pargiter, G. A.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Parker, J.
Sparks, J. A.


King, Dr. H. M.
Parkin, B. T.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Lawson, G. M.
Paton, John
Stonehouse, John


Ledger, R. J.
Peart, T. F.
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Popplewell, E.
Swingler, S. T.


MacColl, J. E.
Prentice, R. E.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Macpherson Malcolm (Stirling)
Probert, A. R.
Usborne, H. C.


Ballalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Proctor, W. T.
Viant, S. P.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Randall, H. E.
Warbey, W. N.


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Rankin, John
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Mason, Roy
Redhead, E. C.
West, D. G.


Mellish, R. J.
Reid, William
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Messer, Sir F.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Willey, Frederick


Mikardo, Ian
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Mitchison, G. R.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)
Ross, William
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Moyle, A.
Royle, C.
Winterbottom, Richard


Mulley, F. W.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Short, E. W.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Oliver, G. H.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Oram, A. E.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Zilliacus, K.


Owen, W. J.
Skeffington, A. M.



Paget, R. T.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Palmer, A. M. F.
Snow, J. W.
Mr Wilkins and Mr. Rogers.


Pannell, Charles (Leeds W.)
Sorensen, R. W.

Orders of the Day — DEFENCE CONTRACTS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.5 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir David Eccles): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Bill is concerned primarily with the use in defence contracts of "know-how." "Know-how" means, broadly speaking, technical information which is not the subject of a patent or registered design. It may be the product of just as much experiment and development work as a patented invention and may be, in the popular sense, just as much a discovery or invention. But the owner does not publish his results, nor seek the privileges of a patent.
The main object of the Bill is to revoke certain emergency powers at present possessed by the Government and to substitute limited but permanent powers enabling "know-how" to be used for defence purposes.
I ought perhaps to explain to the House why I am the sponsor of a Bill about defence contracts. The reason is that the Board of Trade is concerned with the Patents Act, 1949, and the Registered Designs Act, 1949, which are amended by the Bill and is also responsible generally for questions of industrial property, of which "know-how" is today an important part.
The Bill revokes the Orders made under Section 49 of the Patents Act, 1949, and under paragraph 4 of the First Schedule of the Registered Designs Act, 1949.

Mr. Charles Royle: On a point of order. May we have your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Is it right that expressions like the one the right hon. Gentleman is using should be permitted in the House? Is not "technical information" a good phrase and preferable to "know-how," which one regards as slang?

Mr. Speaker: It is quite in order. The choice of Members' language rests with themselves, so long as they obey the rules of order. I have no power to act as a censor of English in the House. I have

heard many a slang expression used in the past.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Further to that point of order. May I draw your attention, Sir, to the fact that there is not a single word in the Bill or in the Explanatory Memorandum about "know-how" and yet the Minister has said that that is what the Bill is all about?

Sir D. Eccles: I supposed that hon. Members would expect of a Second Reading speech an explanation of what the drafting of the Bill means. Hon. Members opposite cannot be familiar with industry, or they would know that "know-how" is now a current term accepted in contracts and, indeed, in courts.
The two Orders which we are revoking enable the Government during an emergency to authorise the use of patented inventions and registered designs for a wide variety of purposes. When the Orders are revoked, the Government's powers will be limited to the right to authorise the use of such inventions and designs for the services of the Crown only.
Secondly, the Bill revokes Regulation 3 of the Defence (Patents, Trade Marks, etc.) Regulations, 1941, under which the Government can authorise the use of "know-how" in any Government contract. For those emergency powers we propose the substitution of more strictly defined permanent powers.
In the first place, amendments are proposed to the Patents Act and the Registered Designs Act. Under those Acts, the services of the Crown, for which patented inventions and registered designs may be used, include the supply of arms to an ally for his defence. They do not include the supply of arms to an all if the order is placed by another ally under the arrangements usually known as offshore purchase. Nor do they include the supply of arms to forces acting under the authority of the United Nations.
Cases of this kind arise out of developments in international relations which were not foreseen when the Patents Act and the Registered Designs Act were passed. The amendments necessary to bring the Government's powers into line with modern conditions are made in Clause 1.
The rest of the Bill deals with "know-how". The permanent powers now proposed in Clause 2 were recommended by an independent—

Mr. R. J. Mellish: On a point of order. I have often heard you deprecate the fact that Members constantly read their speeches, and you have often urged that this practice should be discontinued, Mr. Speaker. Why is it not possible for the same stricture to be applied to Ministers? We now have the position where the Minister is keeping so strictly to his brief that he dare not look up in case he does not know where he is when he looks down again. He is also using a phrase which is not quite usual. Cannot we have a Minister who knows his brief sufficiently well to be able to look up at us occasionally and at least to say, "Hello"?

Mr. Speaker: I have made it clear that a Minister introducing a Bill, or the Leader of the Opposition making a considered statement of his party's policy, is exempt from the usual strictures which are applied to Members reading their speeches. As to the language used, I cannot add to what I have said except to remind the hon. Member that the slang of yesterday is very often the current English of today.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Will you say, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in order for a Minister to read a speech that is unintelligible?

Mr. Speaker: I think that it is in order for a Minister to be furnished with a copious note of what he wishes to say.

Sir D. Eccles: The rest of the Bill deals with "know-how". The permanent powers now proposed in Clause 2 were recommended by an independent committee of inquiry, the Howitt Committee, whose Report was published in June, 1956.
The typical case with which we are concerned is that where a manufacturer wishes to undertake a defence contract and already has in his possession "know-how" which it is essential he should use to carry out the contract. But he is embarrassed by the various restrictions and obligations included in the commercial terms on which he may use that "know-how". For example, an agreement of this kind commonly limits

the uses to which the "know-how" may be put.
The would-be contractor may, therefore, find that use of the "know-how" in question is either impossible—

Mr. Harry Randall: On a point of order. Do not you agree, Mr. Speaker, that the constant use of the word "know-how" is now becoming a matter of constant repetition?

Mr. Maurice Orbach: And irritation.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members must allow the President of the Board of Trade to proceed in his own language, which is quite in order.

Sir D. Eccles: The trouble is that hon. Members opposite who pretend to know about industry know practically nothing about technical information.

Mr. Orbach: Since when has the right hon. Gentleman ever worked in a factory?

Sir D. Eccles: Since just before the war.
The would-be contractor may find that the use of the "know-how" in question is either impossible under his agreement with its owner or is subject to conditions which would be unreasonably onerous on the Department placing the contract. There must be power to break through restrictions of that kind in the interests of national defence. This we must do, but since it means interfering with ordinary commercial arrangements the Government have a duty to see that stringent safeguards are provided for the parties to these arrangements.
The House will know that an Inventions and Designs (Crown Use) Bill was introduced in another place in 1953 and was subsequently withdrawn during debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—thus providing hon. Members opposite with another proof of the usefulness of the other place.
The 1953 Bill was criticised as objectionable to industry because it covered Government contracts generally, and not merely defence contracts, and because it included a power to require the disclosure of "know-how" to a Government Department and to third parties. In subsequent


discussions with industry, the Government undertook to drop these provisions, neither of which is included in the present Bill.
Industry, nevertheless, considered that the whole subject, including the question whether the Government should have the powers at all, should be referred to a committee, and my predecessor accordingly appointed the Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Harold Howitt.
I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the Committee for the way in which it discharged its task. The Committee recommended that the Government should have the powers, but subject to a number of safeguards. With a modification to which I shall refer later, the Government accepted these recommendations, and have, in the light of further discussions with industry, sought to cover them in the Bill.
Clause 2 gives the Government the power to authorise the use of "know-how" in contracts for the supply of defence materials.
The Howitt Committee emphasised the importance of a narrow definition of defence, and the definition of defence materials which is given in Clause 6 is the result of discussing with industry the Committee's recommendation. Defence materials are to comprise, first, articles which are not only required by the Armed Forces or for Civil Defence, but are also designed and adapted for those purposes and, secondly, components of those articles or goods required by the Ministry of Supply or Admiralty to produce, maintain or repair those articles.
I believe that anyone who studies the Report of the Committee will agree that this definition implements its recommendation in letter and in spirit.
I now come to the point on which we have accepted the Committee's Report, with some modification. The Committee recommended that the power to give authorisations to use "know-how" should be exercised only at the highest level in Government Departments. This we accept completely, and here I am speaking for my right hon. Friends who, under Clause 6, are the competent authorities to give authorisations.
They recognise that the inclusion in standard contract terms of an authorisation

under Clause 2 would not be satisfactory. They agree that each case must be considered very carefully.
The Committee also proposed that the legislation should require the Minister or the permanent head of his Department to certify that he personally had considered the particular case. That is the suggestion which has not been implemented. We do not think that the exercise of the powers should be limited by Statute to a Minister personally, or that it would be right, in a matter of this kind, to single out one class of officials from others.
My colleagues are, however, anxious that there should be no misunderstanding as to the importance they attach to the views which have been expressed to us on this matter, and they have asked me to give an assurance that in normal times the decision to issue an authorisation will be made by the Minister personally. I want to stress this point, so that any fear that authorisations might be issued without proper consideration will be removed.
The Bill, as I have said, gives no power to compel a manufacturer to disclose "know-how" to a Government Department or a third party. Clause 2—and in this we are again following the Howitt Committee's recommendation—includes a specific disclaimer of such a power. All that we are asking is the right to authorise a contractor to break his agreement restricting the use of "know-how" and rely on the Government to compensate the person from whom he has the "know-how."
Clauses 3 and 4 are concerned with the safeguards. Under Clause 3, before an authorisation is given a contractor can have three months to negotiate with the owner of the "know-how" a new agreement enabling him to use it for the defence contract on terms acceptable to the Government. If the contractor fails to secure this by ordinary commercial negotiations the Government can issue an authorisation under Clause 2; and in that case the Government has to notify the owner of the "know-how" and any other party who appears to have an interest.
There is only one exception to this procedure, and that is where it would be prejudicial to national security if the existence of contracts for certain defence materials were to be revealed to the owner of the "know-how". I should expect such cases to be very rare.
Under Clause 4, the owner or other interested party may claim compensation from the Government, and, in default of agreement, any dispute about the compensation or its amount can be referred to the High Court. Apart from that, the authorising Department can be challenged in the court on whether it has exceeded its powers under the Act in issuing an authorisation at all. In these two Clauses we have taken into account the recommendations of the Committee and of industry as to the safeguards.
I do not think I need detain the House longer on the other Clauses. The Bill is a revised, and, in the view of the Government and, I hope, of industry, a much improved Measure, containing those limited minimum permanent powers necessary even in peace time for the efficient production of articles required for defence. The Howitt Committee's Report and the advice of industry have enabled the Government to introduce a Bill which does not seek more powers than are necessary and which also provides adequate safeguards against the misuse of those powers. I therefore ask the House to give it a Second Reading.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: Before the right hon. Gentleman concludes, may I ask him whether he will deal with this question? Clause 1 of the Bill provides for an extension of the use of patented inventions in countries abroad. Is it not important that the House should be told whether, in the legislatures of allied countries, there is now being initiated reciprocal or equivalent legislation?

Sir D. Eccles: That is only a very narrow point. It really relates to the case where the United States places an order for weapons to be manufactured in the United Kingdom for delivery, let us say, to one of the N.A.T.O. Powers. At present, we have no power to require the use of patents or registered designs in that particular case. If, in fact, such offshore purchases are being made in other countries for the defence of third countries, I would expect that those other countries would take similar powers to those for which we are asking today.

4.23 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: I am sure the House is grateful to the President of the Board of Trade for having taken us

so mellifluously through the terms of his brief. As he read it, I could not help wondering how much he would have been able to tell us about this Bill if he had not had his brief before him.
I must confess that I am a little discouraged in being about to put the many questions which I desire to put to him, and my discouragement is not lessened by the answer which the Minister has given to my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine). My hon. Friend asked the President, on Clause 1, what the situation was with regard to reciprocity. My hon. Friend wanted to know whether, for example, in the United States, there are some provisions in their legislative system requiring that "know-how" and patents shall be made available in the same way in which this Bill seeks to make them available to various countries in Clause 1.
It really is no answer for the right hon. Gentleman to say that that is a narrow point. It is not a narrow point. Nor is it sufficient for him to say simply that he would assume that that is the case. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, it is his Department which is responsible for the Bill, and it is not an answer to my hon. Friend to say that the right hon. Gentleman assumes that the answer is, "Yes." It is his responsibility to see that it is "Yes." It is his responsibility, in introducing legislation of this sort, to see that this country and its interests, for which he is responsible, are not placed at a disadvantage vis-à-vis other countries.
If that is to be a sample of the kind of answer we are to get to the various points which we want to raise, I feel that we will have some hesitation in coming to the conclusion—if we do—that we can give the Minister the support for which he asks.

Sir D. Eccles: I think that the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) is making a bit much of this. It is not that these patents are to be made available to any manufacturers in any foreign countries. As he knows, it concerns the case where a British manufacturer receives an order for the supply of weapons to one of the N.A.T.O. countries. If the N.A.T.O. country pays directly to Britain with its own money, we have the right to require


the use of patents. It is only when the bill for the arms is paid by the United States that we need this extension. It is not something which makes available to foreign countries British patents and registered designs which they do not have now. It depends entirely on who pays the bill for the guns, or whatever it may be.

Sir F. Soskice: I am obliged for that intervention. I have read the Bill, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that it provides that if the Government wish to supply, pursuant to treaties made with foreign countries, war materials for the defence of those countries, or, indeed, of other countries with which they are in treaty, British manufacturers have to make available to the Government their patents and their "know-how" for the purposes of the manufacture of those arms.
What my hon. Friend was asking, and what the President has not answered, is this: in similar circumstances, would an American manufacturer have to make available to the American Government his patents and "know-how" for the purpose of the supply of war materials overseas, pursuant to offshore purchases or under any other arrangements? It is not a small or a narrow point, but a point which we think the right hon. Gentleman has a responsibility to elucidate. It is his responsibility to see that if we in this country make "know-how" and patents available for the purposes of supplying other countries—which is the case, I assure the right hon. Gentleman, under the terms of his own Bill—other countries receiving the advantages which the Bill provides shall reciprocate them, so that we shall get similar and reciprocal advantages in the terms of their legislation.
If the right hon. Gentleman is unable to answer the question, I very much hope that the Minister who is to wind up the debate will be able to give us an answer. Have there been any negotiations with a view to these reciprocal arrangements, or is the Minister proposing to initiate any such negotiations? If I leave the point at that stage, it will be in the hope that in due course we shall receive an answer.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: The Bill is presented by the President

of the Board of Trade, supported by the Minister of Supply and an hon. Lady representing the Home Office. It seems to be a very strange way of supporting a Bill to absent themselves from the Chamber when it is debated. Would it be possible for these other hon. Members to be informed that the President of the Board of Trade finds himself in some difficulty, so that they might come along here? It might facilitate the course of the debate if we could get answers from the Minister of Supply which we cannot get from the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Was that a point of order? I cannot answer it.

Mr. Mellish: This matter is important, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. My hon. Friend has asked a question to which it is very doubtful whether we are to have an answer which would help us in the course of the debate. Are we not to have that answer before my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) goes on to the main part of his speech?

Sir F. Soskice: I think I can answer my hon. Friend. It certainly seems, at the stage which the debate has now reached, that the answer is "No". I can only express the hope that my hon. Friend and other hon. Friends will stress this matter again and again, because we attach very great importance to this question. If we cannot get an answer, that is a matter which goes against the credit of the Government. If we do not, we shall do our best to press the matter; and I hope that my hon. Friends will think it right that that should be done.
Passing from that point, Clause 1 of the Bill, so far as I understand it, simply provides the machinery for treaties providing for offshore purchases, for the equipment of United Nations police forces, and so on. Since it is merely a machinery provision, I feel that we on this side of the House would, to that extent, have no objection to it. We should certainly wish to scrutinise Clause 1 very much more carefully and with very much more hesitation if the Clause had anything to do with the initiation of policy. We do not approve of many of the treaties which Her Majesty's Government have entered into, and we do not


like their foreign policy at all. But this is simply a machinery provision; it enables treaties entered into to be implemented, and upon that basis we accept it.
In general, we think that it is desirable that the public purpose, the public good, should be forwarded so far as possible by making available for its furtherance private skills and private property, subject to proper safeguards. Clause 1 does that, and, to that extent, we approve it. As I say, we approve it as not entrenching upon the questions of policy about which we are in sharp conflict with Her Majesty's Government.
Although we find ourselves, to the extent I have indicated, approving the purpose of Claus 1, I am bound to say that I am very disappointed at the Government's attitude about the scope of the Clause altogether. We are very much concerned at Government have chosen to give it. It seeks simply to extend to extend the definition of
for the services of the Crown
an expression used in Section 46 of the Patents Act, 1949. As the President of the Board of Trade has already told us, a previous edition of the Bill was introduced in another place in 1953. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that that Bill had been withdrawn, using words which I thought were a little unfortunate, saying that the fact that a Government Measure had been withdrawn indicated the usefulness of another place. If the other place procured the withdrawal of most of the Government Measures we have seen during the life of this Parliament, we should be very ready to endorse his description of its activities. In this particular case, however, we think that his description of what the other place did was quite wrong. I will explain why.
The Bill which was then introduced was far wider in the definition which it adopted of the public purpose which was to be achieved by the use of private patents and private "know-how." I have before me the terms of that Bill. When it was introduced in another place, the purposes for which patents were to be made available was not described merely in the terms of Clause 1 of that Bill as
the supply of war material overseas".
It went very much further than that, embracing the provision of drugs, medicines or appliances required by the

Minister of Health for supply to patients under Part II of the National Health Service Act, 1946. It covered a number of similar purposes. It contained similar provisions with reference to Scotland, with reference to the requirements of the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance for supplies to patients in Northern Ireland, and it related also to the supply of equipment for the purposes of the Fire Services Act. Indeed, it embraced a wide range of purely civil purposes which we on this side regard as of at least equal importance with the defence purposes at present embodied in this very truncated Bill.
The first question I have to put to the Government is this. Why has the Bill been limited by the total omission of any reference, for example, to the Health Service and the other purposes I have enumerated? It comes to the House after the supposedly benevolent activities of another place, completely shorn of half its useful purposes and limited simply to the provision, as I read it, of war materials. This applies both in relation to the use of patents provided for under Clause 1 and also in relation to the use of "know-how" provided for under Clause 2.
The noble Lord who cordially commended that original Bill on Second Reading in the other place indicated that the reason for the reference in the terms of Clause 1 of the earlier Bill to the Health Service and the cognate services to which I have referred was that there was some doubt as to whether the words
for the services of the Crown
which are used in Section 46 of Patents Act, 1949, were wide enough to embrace the Health Service and other services. He made it perfectly clear, as I read his speech, which was a clear and lucid one, that it was the desire and intention of the Government that Section 46 of the Patents Act, 1949, which was the original section making these patents usable for those purposes, should, beyond a peradventure, extend to include things like the Health Service and other services.
The noble Lord, in commending the Bill in the other place, referred, for example, to the provision for hearing aids for hospital patients. He referred to the provision of artificial limbs for hospital patients and pensioners. He referred to


the creation and production of communications equipment for the fire brigade services. He was at pains to point out that it was the intention of the Government that there should be no doubt that, under Section 46 of the Patents Act, 1949, the Government would be able, in their production, to use patents which were helpful in the production of those commodities. It immediately springs to mind that what he said with regard, for example, to hearing aids would have almost equal application to the very expensive proprietary medicines which are used for the purpose of the Health Service.
Why have these things been dropped overboard? Is it because the President of the Board of Trade has now been advised that there is no doubt that the words
for the services of the Crown
are wide enough to include all those things? I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman can give an answer now. Is it the intention of the Government that those words should include the Health Service and the production of that sort of thing for the Health Service? If the President of the Board of Trade feels able to tell us what are the intentions of the Government to which he belongs, I will willingly give way to him.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Sir F. Soskice: I really do not want to be unduly persistent about this, but I feel, if I may say so with great respect to the President of the Board of Trade, that he ought to be able to tell us here, on the Floor of the House of Commons, in introducing the Measure, whether it is the desire of the Cabinet of which he is a member that the words in the Act of 1949,
for the services of the Crown".
are to be construed as being wide enough to include production for the Health Service. Has he now been advised that there is no doubt that they do include the Health Service, or are we really to proceed with the further consideration of the Bill knowing that the President of the Board of Trade has no idea whether they do include the Health Service and other services, and, furthermore, has no idea whether the Government to which he belongs desires that they should, or, indeed, has no idea of whether he himself

desires that they should? If the right hon. Gentleman would like to answer, I will certainly give way to him.

Mr. Denis Howell: Perhaps he could ask the Attorney-General.

Sir F. Soskice: With great respect to my hon. Friend, this is a matter for the President of the Board of Trade. It is for the right hon. Gentleman to be able to tell the House whether he wishes that, to save expenses in the production of proprietary medicines, patents and "know-how" should be available for use by the Government. If he does not know, we can but mark with some displeasure the fact that he seems to be very inadequately instructed as to the purposes of his own Bill, and pass on to the consideration of some other aspect of it.
I am bound to say that we are profoundly disappointed at the response we have had up to the moment and that we shall maintain a completely open mind as to whether we can support the Government in giving the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. Mellish: On a point of order. This is the beginning of what we hoped would be a reasonably short debate, although it is a very important matter. The debate may be completely abortive if what my right hon. and learned Friend says is correct, that is to say, that the words in the 1949 Act are sufficiently wide to give the assurance we require. Our discussion might be brought very quickly to an end if a conclusive answer to this question could be given. We must have that information to debate this matter properly. Is there any way in which you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, can get it for us from the Government Front Bench?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Although I should like to see the debate brought to an end as soon as possible, I cannot make Ministers speak if they do not wish to speak.

Mr. Mellish: It is scandalous. We cannot get on with the debate if the Minister does not give us the information.

Mr. Parkin: Why not ask some of the other right hon. and hon. Members whose names appear on the Bill?

Sir F. Soskice: You have pointed out, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you cannot


force the President of the Board of Trade to speak and it does not look as though anybody else can force him to do so. Indeed, he cannot even force himself to speak, because he does not have the information at his disposal. It is not a matter on which he should have to send for information from his officials in the Official Box. He should know this information. If he is unable to answer, the only inference we can draw is that the Government, for some purpose of their own, have deliberately desired to omit provision for the Health Service. If that is the situation, I should like to ask the President of the Board of Trade one or two other questions.

Mr. H. Hynd: My right hon. and learned Friend will not get an answer.

Sir F. Soskice: I am sure of that.
I should be grateful if the President of the Board of Trade would be so good as to have before him, if he has it available or if the experts in the Official Box can supply him with it, the text of the Bill of the former President of the Board of Trade, the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at Clause 1 he will see that I have correctly cited its effect. I am ready to give all possible time to the right hon. Gentleman. I will willingly digress to some other topic while the missing copy of the Bill is searched for. If it cannot be found, perhaps I had better remind the President of the Board of Trade of what it contained.
Clause 1 provided that these patents were to be usable for the purposes of the Health Service. Obviously, Clause 1 must have been inserted as the result of mature deliberation by the Government. I suppose that the original Bill must have passed, in the ordinary way, through Cabinet committees. It then must have had the approval of the Cabinet. I will not ask for the contents of Cabinet papers, but surely the Bill must have been placed before the Cabinet by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who must have given adequate reasons to induce the Cabinet to include that Clause in the Bill.
I suppose that those reasons must, for example, have indicated a saving in cost to the Health Service if "know-how" and patents could be made available for the production of proprietary medicines, together with all the other savings and

advantages which might accrue for the purpose of perfecting that Service and otherwise, and which induced the Government to include that provision in Clause 1 of the Bill.
As I have stated, not only did the Government include it but the noble Lord who recommended it to the other place went so far as to say that he was anxious to remove doubt as to whether those provisions were included. That was the whole point; their Lordships wanted to be certain of it. Will the President of the Board of Trade be so good as to refer again to his brief and tell us what were the motives that actuated the Government at that time in including the Clause in the Bill? They cannot have done it simply because of a whim. They must have done it for a set purpose and with adequate reasons. One of those reasons must have related to the saving in cost to the Health Service.
I should like the President of the Board of Trade to state those reasons. He must know them, or at least he ought to know them. When he has stated them I should like him to tell us in what sense these reasons have subsequently become invalid. If they were reasons which commended themselves to the Government in 1952 or 1953, when the introduction of the Bill was being considered, what has subsequently falsified them? Has it been found that the anticipated expense would not have been saved? What were the reasons which actuated the Government which are now shown to be invalid?
I very much hope that when this debate is wound up we will be put in the position of being able to follow why the Government, having first done what we would very much like to see them do, namely, made this provision for the Health Service, have now thought fit to exclude it. I feel sure I am right in saying that, just as in my own case so in the case of my right hon. and hon. Friends, this is a consideration which will greatly influence them in making up their minds whether they should vote for the Second Reading of the Bill.
The President of the Board of Trade does not look any more responsive than he was before, but I hope that in due course, when the question has had time to mature, we shall be placed in possession of the information which we certainly


look for to enable us to make up our minds about it.
I hope that the Government are not trying to take refuge behind the report of the Howitt Committee. I join with the right hon. Gentleman in expressing thanks to the three members of that Committee, one of whom, a member of my own profession, is personally known to me. I have the highest regard for his judgment. But this is not a matter of the judgment formed by those three gentlemen. It is a matter of political judgment to be decided on far wider considerations. The question for political judgment is this: is not the improvement—the perfection—of the Health Service, which is so important for the country, to be raised to a level equivalent to that of defence purposes to which the Bill is at present limited?
After all, the Howitt Committee pointed out that "know-how", as it is called, is very widespread in industry. Many industrialists, instead of taking up a patent as they might have done before now, keep their "know-how" secret, keep it to themselves. Let me cite from page 1 of the Report of the Howitt Committee:
we have been given evidence that industry now relies to an increasing degree on detailed information, such as working drawings, models, designs, technical records, and details of workshop practice, which is either unpatentable or is not in practice patentable.
There is a wide reservoir of knowledge and skill which, subject always to proper safeguards to make the position fair as between the private industrialist and the Government, should, so far as possible, be put at the disposal of the Government not for the limited purpose simply of producing defence materials, but for a far wider and more important extended purpose as was the case in the terms of the previous Bill, namely, to include the various social purposes, as I would broadly describe them, which I have enumerated. I can only say that it is regrettable that Clause 2 has now been limited equally with Clause 1 simply to the production of defence materials.
I have read carefully the debate in another place and I know that I would be ruled out of order if I sought to give the text of what was said by noble Lords during that debate. I think, nevertheless,

that it is within the bounds of order to cite in summary form the conclusions which actuated them in asking the Government to withdraw this Bill. One circumstance which moved them was that the 1953 Bill, as originally framed, in dealing with the technical information, or "know-how", to which I have been referring, contained provisions that a person in possession of "know-how" should, subject to a criminal penalty, be bound to disclose that "know-how" if he was required to do so by a Government Department. It was that particular provision which, if I correctly summarise the effect of the debate, moved noble Lords to ask for the rejection of the Bill. That provision is not now in the Bill.
I am not saying that it should or should not be in the Bill—probably an amended and more qualified provision should be substituted for it—but I should like to ask the President of the Board of Trade: without any such provision, where are the Government? Are they not almost powerless to have made available for them this vast amount of accumulated scientific knowledge which, subject to the proper safeguards, should be made available for these necessary social purposes which I have indicated?
The situation turns upon Clause 2 (2). I have tried to analyse what the effect of that Clause is, I have written it out, and I think that I correctly summarise its effect in these terms. What the Clause provides in dealing with agreements to restrict the disclosure to the Government of "know-how" is this. So much of any agreement as restricts disclosure of terms of that or any other agreement shall be of no effect in relation to a disclosure to a competent authority of information required by that authority to enable it to identify restrictions or obligations from which the person to whom the authorisation is given is relieved or discharged.
Will the President of the Board of Trade, or the Minister who is to wind up the debate, please tell me what that really means, and what is the use of it to the Government? Does not it leave the Government wholly unprotected in the face of barriers which will prevent them getting at this "know-how" in order to make sure that it is made available for the public service?
In relation to the provisions which the Government have now omitted from the terms of this Bill, I should like to ask exactly the same question as the one I asked in relation to the provisions which have been omitted from Clause 1. I am now talking about Clause 2. This provision, which was objected to in another place, was in the Bill when it was originally presented to another place. Presumably, the Government must have had reasons for inserting it in that Bill. Why are those reasons invalidated? Did not they put those provisions in the Bill because they felt that without some such provision Government Departments would be virtually powerless to see to it that "know-how" was made available for the Health Service, for which that particular Bill provided, or for the more limited purposes now envisaged in the Bill?
I would like to ask the Minister to explain the sort of situation that he envisages. What is the good of Clause 2 in this truncated form? Is it not essential that there must be, perhaps not so drastic a provision as in the original Bill, at least something to enable a Government Department which wants to have access to, and to make use of for public purpose, this valuable "know-how", to have disclosed to it its character and identity, obviously, of course, under safeguards? Clearly, it should not be disclosed to rival industrialists.
I ask the Government whether, in cutting that provision out of the Bill, they have really not almost completely frustrated its purpose. The Bill not only contains that very involved formula which I read out, and which I find it very difficult to unravel, but goes further and, in specific terms, prevents disclosure of any technical information to a Government Department. It prevents disclosure to a Government Department and to third parties. I quite agree that it should not be disclosed to rivals, but surely it can, with safety, be disclosed to Government Departments, and Government Departments can be enjoined against disclosing it unlawfully to other persons who may be in competition with the owner of the technical information.
This Bill is a very sorry edition of the Bill which was introduced in 1953. I think that it is a somewhat new experience for us on this side of the House to seek to commend a Measure of the present

Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope that right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite will forgive me, because I do not mean it in any offensive sense when I say that we on this side of the House nearly always think that Measures introduced by the right hon. Gentleman are short-sighted, ineffective, perverse, mischievous and obtuse. I have merely tried to indicate in measured language the feelings that we have.
On this particular occasion. I hope that the Chancellor will feel considerably comforted and encouraged when, as I think will be the case, one after another of my hon. Friends gets up and commends the Measure which he, when he was President of the Board of Trade, introduced in another place. I think that he was right then and that the present President of the Board of Trade is misconceived and wrong. What he has done is to refer this to three gentlemen, and he has taken refuge behind their report. I respectfully submit to him that this is really a matter for which he is responsible and in relation to which the report to which he refers can be of very limited assistance either to hint or this House.
This is a matter for wider political judgment, and the political judgment which I would ask the President of the Board of Trade to adopt is that this is a sort of Measure which should be widely phrased and not narrowly phrased. If it is justified in the public interest to use patents owned by private people and "know-how" owned by private industrialists for the purpose of defence, equally it is justifiable, always subject to safeguards to make the position fair as between the private industrialists and the Government, that they should equally be available for this far wider and more extended purpose to which I have drawn attention.
I shall listen with interest to the reply which I hope we are to have later, so that I may be able to make up my mind. I believe that what I have to say for myself is the feeling which will be entertained by my right hon. and hon. Friends who will certainly desire to follow me in the debate if they are fortunate enough to catch the eye of Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I rise to put one or two specific matters to the President of the Board of


Trade, or to my hon. Friend when he comes to reply, on a Bill which, I think, is important. It is an important Bill because it seems to me that it is the beginning of what might be the forerunner of a lot of legislation in this field in the years ahead. I think that in five or ten years' time we may find a great deal of pressure to move still further into the realms of private contracts, and it may not always be that we shall have a Government so dependable as the present Government. That being so, we are now engaged in what, at first sight, is a small Measure, but a Measure which may, as I say, be the forerunner of further legislation in what is essentially a practical field.
It seems to me that modern industry is not making very much use of patents at the present time, and I think that as the years go by, with international trade growing and expanding, it may well be found that people will rely on the secrecy of their contracts rather than upon the use of patents. If that is so, it clearly behoves us to be careful as to exactly where we are going in this Bill.
I support the Bill in its general nature for several reasons. First, I think that a really admirable feature of it is that it is indeed time that we got rid of the Defence Regulations and got their general content in a proper Act of Parliament. That, I think, will command the support of all in the House. This is a good opportunity to debate this matter. The Bill will go through Committee, unlike the Defence Regulations in the old days, and we shall see precisely what we are laying down for the future. It is also clearly right that the powers contained in this Bill, at least for the next year or two, should be limited to defence requirements, and clearly right that there should be this period of negotiation of three months contained in the Bill. It is also clearly right that it should not require the power of disclosure of private contracts at this stage, although in years to come that may be overridden.
There are two or three points specifically about which I am concerned, though I admit that I have not given the Bill the detailed and careful consideration that I should have liked to have given it, and I have not discussed it with those who are engaged in industry. I want to

put the first point to the Minister. My right hon. Friend himself raised it fairly in his opening speech. I am inclined to think that Sir Harold Howitt and the other two members of the Howitt Committee are right and that the words "competent authority" should be strictly construed.
I am not content with an assurance from any Government Department or any Minister—because that never binds anyone in the future—that authorisation will be considered at a high level. In these days, when we may have rapid changes of Ministers or even a change of Government, there should be a clearer definition in the Bill than the present definition of "competent authority". Nor do I think that this is a Committee point. The Bill is one which may well be the forerunner of future legislation.
I invite the President of the Board of Trade to give careful thought to the question whether, if the Minister himself is not to certify, there is any other means of having somebody at a high level being actually defined in the Bill as having that power. The party opposite has very different ideas from ours, and in this particular field they are horrible ideas. I exclude the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), because I know him well in another sphere, and I am sure that he would deprecate the misuse of such power.
There are, however, Ministers who have delegated to their civil servants far too wide powers to make decisions of one kind or another. Those who have been concerned with town and country planning and questions of compensation know that time and again decisions have been taken at quite a low level in Ministries, of which the Minister knows nothing whatsoever, and those decisions have had the greatest impact.

Mr. D. Howell: On a point of order. I am a new Member, but I thought it was the practice in the House that Ministers had full responsibility for everything in their Departments. Is it in order, therefore, for an hon. Member to allege that Ministers who are responsible for their Departments do not know what is going on in the Departments and to put the blame on civil servants who are not in a position to defend themselves?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) did not say that. He said that in future it might happen.

Mr. Parkin: I hope the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) was not referring to the Minister of Defence, who said as late as this afternoon that he did not believe in negotiating but left it to his officials.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I thought the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet was talking about what might happen in the future under this Bill.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I know that hon. Members opposite want their jollying in this matter, but I thought I was making a very serious point. We know quite well that in the Ministry of Defence, and certainly in the Ministry of Supply, it is quite impracticable for the Minister to have personal knowledge of each contract. The Howitt Report is very definite on this matter. It states in paragraph 23 (A)
The Ministry of Supply agree—indeed assert—that they would expect the powers to be exercised only in comparatively few and exceptional cases. The general reasonableness and patriotism of commercial men, their own commercial interests, and the provisions for renegotiation before any authority could be issued would in all normal cases ensure that fair and mutually satisfactory arrangements could be made without recourse to the use of the over-riding powers.
If that is so, and it is also the case that the Ministry of Supply will handle these matters, it would seem that a Minister, or at least a Permanent Under-Secretary or somebody of as high a level as that, should be the person to give the necessary certificate that he had investigated the matter.
I may be wrong, but I know of no precedent of a definition in which a civil servant, or at least his post, is named. Nor do I know of one which requires that a civil servant must be of a certain level. It might be unwise to adopt that course. If so, I should prefer to play for safety and arrange for a certificate by the Minister, rather than override the views of the Howitt Committee. This is a point which might be ventilated in Committee after the whole matter has been thoroughly investigated.
The second point is another matter on which I am not wholly clear. I am not at all sure whether Clause 2 (3) gives

powers for what would be unnecessary retrospective operation. The subsection says:
An authorisation given for the purposes of subsection (1) of this Section may apply to things done before as well as after the date on which it is given.
I do not know whether that is intended to provide for retrospective operation or not. I should very much like an explanation of that part of the Bill. If it is really intended to enable somebody who has made a mistake in the Ministry to use powers which he ought not to use to put himself in the right, then, to put it quite bluntly, I am agin' it. On the other hand, there may be an explanation which I may not have understood or appreciated properly.
The Bill should be welcomed, because everything that we can produce to remove these provisions from Defence Regulations and to bring them before the House and, if possible, to clarify them should demand the support of the whole House. We are moving into an era in which, to some extent, industry must accept that it should be at least asked and possibly required to disclose some of its confidential information. In a period in which Japan and Germany and other countries—and I say this without disrespect—are out to "pinch" our patents and information and to use them in a world in which the international rule of law is quite useless as a protection, it is important that the Government should be given additional powers and that those powers should be most carefully utilised.
The word "know-how" has been criticised. It is, broadly speaking, defined in Clause 2 (7). It covers pot only processes but, of course, information of all kinds. The sort of example I have in mind is the case of one of my own constituents. I do not propose to disclose the facts and the names, because this was confidential information. My constituent supplied to the Air Ministry certain drawings and a model for the purpose of tendering for a contract. The drawings and model got into the Department and, unfortunately, some of the design was copied by somebody else who then sent it back to another contractor to tender for the contract, admittedly by mistake.
As a result, the "know-how" in that case was passed to somebody else who tendered for the contract and secured it,


to the detriment of my constituent. The matter was wholly and properly investigated. My constituent is satisfied and the Air Ministry is satisfied that there was a mistake, but the important point is that there are a great many confidential drawings and designs. Sometimes some of them are very similar, or perhaps show some slight improvement here and there as between one competitor and another, but they constitute information which is obviously of great assistance to our Government and to other Governments in deciding the best design for a defence contract.
It is obviously important that these decisions should be taken at a high level, for the following reason. If they are taken at a low level there may be two different members of the same Department, one in one part of it, another in another part, engaging quite properly in their business with a contract and not appreciating what the other is doing, as happened in that case. That is another reason why I would like to see this Bill ensure that only those in a really high position in the Ministry have the power to be able to certify. In that case we could be sure that there was no overlapping and that such mistakes did not arise to the detriment of the commercial men we want to encourage to trust their information to the Government.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that there is nothing in the Bill which would prevent the kind of mischief to which he has referred, namely, of confidential information being passed from one contractor to another?

Mr. Rees-Davies: I entirely agree. I was only using that case as an illustration. I believe that what we want to do through this Bill is to encourage a reasonable climate in commercial men so that they will pass on information to Government Departments in the sure knowledge that they can trust them. Therefore, this Bill should provide all possible safeguards to that end.
I used that illustration to show that at too low a level these mistakes happen even in the best-conducted Departments. I did not give that illustration because I was seeking to criticise the Air Ministry for having done something terrible; it was just something which might happen even in a gigantic commercial firm. It

does happen, and therefore I invite the President of the Board of Trade to pay the greatest possible regard to these safeguards, so that we may get the utmost co-operation from commerce and trade in what I regard as a most important field.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: There was one thing said by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) with which I agree. He said that there were certain aspects of this Bill which showed the fundamental difference between his party and mine, and I will deal with that primarily in my speech.
I must first make reference to what was an appalling Second Reading speech made by the President of the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman had a brief which he could not have read until he put it on the Dispatch Box. He stuck his nose into it and read it. He did not understand it. He has been asked simple, elementary questions affecting the Bill, and he has been unable to give a single answer. The right hon. Gentleman knows no more about the Bill now than when he started, and from the point of view of debate I regard this as a shocking example of a Minister introducing an important Bill.
There is one thing to be said for the right hon. Gentleman, that when we become the Government of the day—as we shall in the not far distant future—whoever on these back benches is given a job to do on the Front Bench opposite could not do a worse job than the President of the Board of Trade has done today. The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet was here and he knows that the Minister has not been able to answer a single question.
One fundamental question was asked and, as the President of the Board of Trade has had time to study it, I will ask it again. The question is whether the 1948 Act gives security as regards trade in these matters; in other words, whether the Crown has certain rights under that Act to demand certain information. We desire that to be in the Bill. We have not had an answer to that question and, apparently, we are not likely to get one.
There was an inquiry held consequent upon the 1953 Act regarding the powers


of the Crown to authorise the use of unpatented inventions and unregistered designs in connection with defence con-tracts. I have the Report of that inquiry in my hand, and there are fundamental points in it which must be quoted here. We find in paragraph 15 on page 6 of the Report of the Committee of Enquiry on the Powers of the Crown to Authorise the Use of Unpatented Inventions and Unregistered Designs in connection with Defence Contracts the following:
It is clear that our national resources of trained personnel are inadequate to enable us in this country to cover the ever widening field of complex technical development. Further, our physical resources, such as research laboratories and technical institutions, are also inadequate.
Paragraph 16 states:
For the most part, no doubt, it is the larger British companies who have agreements dealing with these technical matters, and it can be assumed that they will act, not only intelligently but with regard to the national interest. Nevertheless, it may well happen that at the time when an agreement is entered into, its ultimate possibilities In respect of Government requirements are not foreseen or even contemplated.
Finally, there is this comment:
Additionally, the national interest must be protected against the unscrupulous and the avaricious.
The 1953 Act, which was promoted in another place, did just that with a number of important matters. As a result of the debate in the other place, vicious opposition was expressed by certain private vested interests. Anyone who wants to find out if that is true should read the report of the debate. This opposition was expressed openly and frankly on behalf of certain private vested interests which did not want the power of the State to take away any secret information that might be in their possession. They did not want anything removed from them from which they were making a private profit.
We had all the old stuff put out about the freedom of the individual being attacked as opposed to the interests of the State. Eventually, after a short debate, the noble Lord Woolton, on behalf of the Government, rose and moved the Motion, "That the debate stand adjourned." He saw the opposition coming from people like my Lord Balfour and others, he realised that they were touching interests which were fundamental to the party opposite. They were actually going to

pass legislation in 1953 which would compel some of the best supporters of the party opposite to divulge information, so the noble Lord moved that the debate stand adjourned.
It is scandalous that four years afterwards we have this innocuous Bill which has taken the guts out of the 1953 Act and which has made sure that the vested interests concerned are no longer affected. Let us look again at the Report of that Committee, Cmd. 9788. I must say that this is a bright paper. The Committee of Enquiry met on ten occasions and received both written and oral representations from organisations. Whom did they meet? The Ministry of Supply, the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents—I bet they were good—the Federation of British Industries, the London Chamber of Commerce, the National Union of Manufacturers, and the Trade Marks, Patents, and Designs Federation. There is a nice collective body of vested interests. These are the people who, no doubt, would have suffered financial reverse if the 1953 Act had gone through in its original form.
What happened is that, having discussed the matter with these gentlemen who are good friends of the Tory Party, we have the Bill which is now presented for Second Reading—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. W. J. Taylor): A mischievous speech.

Mr. Mellish: It is a mischievous Bill. I am prepared to give way to the Parliamentary Secretary if he wants to interrupt. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get up."] He has not said anything yet. If the hon. Gentleman expects me to make a speech in favour of this Government, he is making a mistake. It is a shocking Government, and I would like to get rid of it tomorrow, if not today.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Mr. Rees-Davies rose—

Mr. Mellish: No, I am not willing to give way for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply. The fact is that this Bill has come four years after the 1953 Act, which was originally promoted to do one thing. Here I agree with the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet, that the Defence Regulations which are not required should go, and those which are necessary should be embodied in an Act of Parliament. We do not want any emergency powers of this


kind. We want to know where we are, with an Act of Parliament giving the Crown sufficient authority. If there are emergency regulations which are not required, let us get rid of them. That is fair enough.
The one criterion to be adopted must surely be the national need. Unfortunately, the Government will not accept that. Why is it that in the original Act the Ministry of Health was given certain protective powers in respect of drugs? The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply said that I am mischievous. Perhaps, with his great knowledge of these matters, he will tell me why the Minister of Health was given certain power in 1953 to obtain secret knowledge about drugs to meet the national need but in this Bill is not given that power? If he will answer that, I will give way to him. Apparently he does not wish to do so. That is the sort of Government we have. They are paid for not knowing any answers. It is money for false pretences.
The position now is that a person can be in possession of knowledge which would benefit humanity as a whole and the Bill will allow him to make all the private profit he wants out of it. There is to be no power to acquire the knowledge to meet the national need. That is where the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet and myself disagree. I say that such a position is wrong. If certain information would benefit the country as a whole, the State should have the right to acquire it. The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet does not want that. I would say this to him: I have always argued that there is danger in a bureaucracy. There is a danger of certain people getting power which they should not have. It is important that we should devise machinery to try to prevent much of that. We must write into the Bill certain compensation Clauses for those people who have this information taken from them.

Mr. Rees-Davies: If a company in this country has some valuable secret information through which a process could be commercially exploited, then if there is a danger of the company being forced by the Government to produce this information, will it not sell it overseas? Is it not far better to get the co-operation of traders?

Mr. Mellish: I am surprised that that is the sort of commercial mind with which the hon. Member is dealing. If such a person is prepared to sell the information overseas in order to get more money out of it, what sort of a man is he?

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Does my hon. Friend recall a piece of evidence given in another place last week in which a director of a powerful financial company wrote to his agents in London telling them to take certain steps and adding the immortal sentence, "It is anti-British, but it makes sense"?

Mr. Mellish: I suppose it would be out of order for me to refer to anything which has happened at Church House, but I must say that part of that is a sorry story.
I object to the fact that the Bill gives no power to compel a manufacturer to give this or any other Government certain inventions and designs in certain fields. The Ministry of Health is one. The Government are always bitterly complaining about the cost of the National Health Service, particularly about the cost of proprietary drugs. I should have thought that here was a great opportunity for us to acquire some of these drugs for the nation. If they are of such importance, we could manufacture them on the basis of the needs of the people and not on the basis of how much private profit is to be made by certain people. We should consider what is the profit to the whole nation.
That is the fundamental difference between the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanes and myself. He talks about his commercial friends. I intend nothing personal here, but, frankly, some of them are no credit to his party or to anybody in Britain. As far as I can judge, the Bill has been devised to help such people as that. It is a protection of the so-called rights of private property.
I have said before and I say again that all this stuff and nonsense about private freedom which we hear from the Conservative Party makes me sick, because when we consider the creation of a property-owning democracy we realise that no one has done more harm and damage to such a concept than the crowd sitting on the benches opposite. They have almost destroyed private house


ownership in this country by their high interest rates. I will not develop that, because I should be out of order.
Talk about defending private individuals and private property and the right of a man to own his own home, and talk about the right to prevent the State from interfering in any way, comes ill from hon. Members opposite. What a lot of nonsense it is. The truth is that the Government have not the guts to govern. They have not the courage to do the sort of things which they ought to do as a Government for the protection of the people as a whole.
By contrast, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) made a brilliant speech. Of course he knew what the Bill was all about, which is much more than can be said for the President of the Board of Trade. Towards the end of his speech, my right hon. and learned Friend said that we might divide against the Bill. I hope that we shall. I hope that we shall vote against the Second Reading, and I certainly hope that we shall put down sufficient Amendments in Committee, which I hope will be on the Floor of the House, to give the Bill some of the powers and strength which the 1953 Act had.
We on this side of the House should draw a lesson from the activities surrounding this Bill. No party has ever defended its true friends more than has the Conservative Party. It has defended the few who have the money and the few who have the vital interests. When we in the Labour Party obtain power, which I hope will not be far distant, we shall know that we, too, have a duty—a duty to protect the mass of the people who, I hope, will be our friends at the next election.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. John Cronin: I think it is generally accepted, certainly on this side of the House, that the President of the Board of Trade today made a very disappointing speech. The brevity of his speech and his lack of explanation on obvious and essential points seemed to be a very casual way to; treat the House. It is surprising that the President should behave in this way, because on other occasions and in moving other Second Readings we have had very clear and lucid speeches from him.
One wonders whether his performance today was due to inefficiency or whether there was some sinister purpose behind it. Is the President deliberately adopting an attitude of unreasonable taciturnity because he wishes to conceal facts from the House? That may well be the purpose. When one realises the antecedents of the Bill, one cannot help feeling that some colour is lent to this theory.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) pointed out, the 1953 Bill was dropped under curious circumstances and clearly on account of the intervention of vested interests. Is it not possible—and this is a rhetorical question—and is it not almost certain that the President has adopted this very unhelpful attitude simply because he is concealing parts of the Bill which have been forced upon him by the interests which normally activate his party? That may well be the explanation.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) expressed great disappointment that the provisions of the 1953 Act which related to drugs, appliances and similar articles which come under Part II of the National Service Act have been dropped from the Bill. All hon. Members are aware that the cost of drugs in the National Health Service is reaching exorbitant proportions. Anyone who reads the Ministry of Health Report will find that there has been an increase of £7 million in this year alone. Here we have a comparatively simple way of reducing those costs, but the Government propose to take no action at all. They have dropped those essential provisions which were contained in the 1953 Act.
One also wonders why even more general provisions have not been introduced into the Bill. I have no doubt that my hon. Friends will move Amendments in Committee to make sure that those additional provisions are introduced. For instance, there are no powers to ensure that provisions are made for protecting the maintenance of public supplies and services of an essential character—arrangements which, of course, were made with the original emergency provisions. There is no provision of a general nature, such as existed in the emergency regulations, to make sure that the resources of the community as a


whole are made available and are used in the best possible manner. It would be very simple to write those matters into the Bill. As the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) very rightly pointed out, if they are not included in the Bill there must be some future legislation to extend the powers.
I have various questions to which I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to apply himself. First of all, how is the compensation to be assessed for a continuing future loss? That is something which the Government will find rather difficult. When a person who finds himself aggrieved by the provisions of the Bill wants to obtain compensation, how will it be calculated in future years? Is it to be assumed that inflation is to proceed at the present very high rate? It seems quite possible that there may be substantial injustice done to aggrieved people.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us if he is to get co-operation from those foreign countries that derive benefit from this Bill? That is an extremely important point. Foreign countries may well use a defence invention for entirely civil purposes, and that would put us to a very serious disadvantage. Again, how are small firms to come out of this? Are their rights to be protected by the Bill? It provides for an appeal to the High Court, but that often involves enormous cost. How is a small firm to cope with that situation, and are we really certain that the present Government, so tender to the large industrial organisations, will adopt a similar attitude to the small firms? I very much doubt it.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and 40 Members being present—

Mr. Cronin: Are we really certain that the small firms will have the protection to which they are entitled?
It seems rather unfortunate that one of the principal reasons that have made this Bill necessary has been that our national resources of trained personnel are inadequate to enable us to cover the ever-widening field of technical development. In other words, one of the purposes of the Bill is to obtain the use of what is

known as "know-how" from overseas. Another is to obtain the use of physical resources from overseas.
I think my hon. Friends will agree that one of the most serious defects in the present Government's policy is that we have not adequate research facilities, or the technical institutions necessary to provide them. One hardly needs to refer to the fact that there is a grave lack of trained personnel in industry. This, of course, is not helped by the Government's very poor handling of the educational situation, and one sees no prospect of improvement in the future.

Mr. D. Howell: Would not my hon. Friend agree that, after the President's performance this afternoon, it would seem that the right hon. Gentleman is hardly qualified to pass the 11-plus examination?

Mr. Cronin: The President's performance has, of course, been lamentable, showing a complete lack of respect for the House. There was a touch of arrogance about it, directed not just to this side but also to his own hon. Friends. I am surprised that they tolerate it. There were hon. Gentlemen opposite who, quite clearly, were taking an intelligent interest in the Bill, and one could see the disappointment in their faces because of the gross lack of elementary technical information of his subject shown by the right hon. Gentleman.
Another important point which needs investigation is this rather arbitrary period of three months given to firms or interested individuals in which to negotiate. We all know that three months may often be a very inadequate period of time in which to make enough inquiries and to have available sufficient information to bring to negotiations. Can arrangements be made to extend that period, if necessary? It seems a most elementary piece of fair play which those affected by this Bill are entitled to expect.
I come now to the question of Ministerial consideration before action is taken under the Bill. One must face the fact that this Bill will make some sweeping changes in the constitutional rights of individuals. I think it is absolutely essential that, before such action is taken, approval should be given on the personal consideration of the Minister concerned or, if he is not available, that of the


permanent head of his Department. The Howitt Committee takes a very strong stand on this. In paragraph 24 it says:
In order to ensure, as far as may be, that the Crown's decision to override the terms of a commercial agreement, freely and voluntarily entered into, is not made lightly or irresponsibly or without due consideration, we recommend that it should be a condition of the validity of the exercise of the powers in any particular case that a certificate should be given, either by the Minister or the permanent head of the Department concerned, that he personally has considered the particular case and is of opinion that it is fair and reasonable that the powers should be exercised to the extent and in the manner set out in the certificate.
The Howitt Committee has made a very strong case that this should be a matter for direct action by the Minister concerned or, at least, by the permanent head of the Department, and the President of the Board of Trade, in his light and somewhat frivolous speech, made no real case to dispute that recommendation. As my hon. and learned Friends will no doubt confirm, there is nothing new about this. There are certain court cases in which an affidavit has to be obtained that the Minister himself has given consent when information is kept by the Crown from the court for security or other reasons. There is nothing new about it, and I think we should certainly insist that the Minister himself should intervene in these matters personally.
This is rather an unfortunate Bill, but it does contain a core of utility—I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) say that I am using very moderate language. I can sympathise with his feelings. In many ways it is a very inferior Bill, and, quite naturally, feelings as to its inferiority have been inflamed by the frivolous speech of the President. One of the most essential Ministerial qualifications—tact—has been conspicuously lacking, and I think that it is an extraordinary illustration of the good manners of my right hon. and hon. Friends that we have used language of such moderation and courtesy.
As I was saying, this Bill contains gross faults and defects, and these defects will have to be stripped right down in Committee. My hon. Friends and I will have to produce a mass of Amendments and will have to give the Bill very careful study. The Committee stage will certainly take a considerable time. I hope the

Parliamentary Secretary has prepared himself and will gird his loins, because he has a long and arduous journey before him. We have the greatest respect for the Parliamentary Secretary. He has always treated us with courtesy and urbanity, and he speaks with great knowledge, but we feel that he will be taxed to the utmost of his powers to cope with the Committee stage of the Bill, because the Bill will he stripped down to a mere skeleton and completely replaced.

Mr. A. E. Cooper: Would the hon. Gentleman inform the House the object of this nonsense which is being carried out on the benches opposite?

Mr. Parkin: The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) has only just entered the Chamber.

Mr. Cronin: I am so glad we had that intervention, because it shows what a marked contrast there is between the courtesy with which we behave on this side of the House and the somewhat boorish behaviour we have come to expect from the less responsible back bench Members on the other side.

Mr. Orbach: It also shows that there is a Tory back bench Member present.

Mr. Cronin: I am sorry the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) should have made that intervention, because normally we expect a much higher standard of conduct from him.
I apologise if this interruption has lengthened my speech. Returning to the main substance of this Bill, there is no doubt that in Committee we shall have to alter the Bill. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary will be prepared to swallow their pride and make reasonable and sensible concessions so that we may place a really useful piece of legislation on the Statute Book.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: There is one provision in the Bill which we would all agree to be accurate, including the Parliamentary draftsmen. I refer to Clause 6 (1), which says that "competent authority" does not include the President of the Board of Trade.
I wish to refer to the protest I made earlier about the fact that it is stated on


the front of the Bill that this Measure is supported by the Minister of Supply and by the hon. Lady the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. Surely we have been treated with very scant courtesy in view of the absence of representatives of these Ministries, except for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply, who was just able to make a rude interjection without removing his feet from the Table. If he is saving his knowledge for a later stage of the debate, we shall be grateful.
The Government have forced us to agree to a suspension of the Rule, from which one would gather that they expect a somewhat long discussion on the Bill. I had, therefore, expected that one Minister after another would be intervening to expound what the Bill means in the terms of their Departmental responsibilities. We have not even had an exposition of the Bill. We do not know what the Bill involves in terms of the Departmental responsibilities of those Ministers who are absent. We have no more idea than when we came in exactly how this Bill alters the very complicated operation of, for instance, the Ministry of Supply.
One of my chief objections to this Bill is that it relates to the only part of the complicated measures which were taken at the beginning of the war to deal with the problems of industrial production to sustain the war effort, which the Government are prepared to retain. It is a very odd situation that over the years the Government have been steadily and insidiously dismantling the mobilisation of the resources of private capital, which was undertaken in the national interest and which was one of the conditions insisted upon by the Labour Party before accepting the mobilisation and conscription of human beings. That is the historical background to this Bill.
When private property and resources were mobilised there was a whole series of enactments at the beginning of the war, and private capital and interests have been at these enactments ever since trying to nibble them away. Finally, they have been able to nibble away the most important part of those enactments. The astonishing thing is that here is a Tory Government wanting to put this Bill permanently on the Statute Book. I am surprised that they did not introduce a

Bill for a limited period until they have had time to think it out. One would have thought that this was one of the matters which would appear among the expiring laws for reconsideration every year.
Conditions have altered completely since 1939 when these devices were introduced. Of the wide range of problems raised by the Bill, not least in importance is the problem of what constitutes defence material. We have nowadays a situation in which, for defence purposes, an enormous range of articles is purchased or adapted for the use of the armed forces or their allies. Only the other day, the Minister of Supply, covering up inadequacies in other respects, was telling us about experiments with composition-soled boots for the Army, and we understand that this is to be followed by Terylene socks.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply, if the President of the Board of Trade does not know, tell us what happens in terms of this Bill with the manufacture of Terylene and its use by the forces? Does it mean that someone else is instructed to make Terylene socks according to the formula at present used by Imperial Chemical Industries, or does it mean that Imperial Chemical Industries will have to supply Terylene on special terms? What does it mean when our envious allies in N.A.T.O. learn about the equipment of the British Army?

Mr. Rees-Davies: The hon. Gentleman is treating us to an interesting dissertation on what is a proper definition of defence material. Will he tell us whether the defence material that he has in mind relates to the definition of "defence" in this Bill or whether he is referring to a later Measure on the Order Paper, the Maintenance Orders Bill?

Mr. Parkin: So far as I can understand that befuddled intervention, I think it is an imputation on my intentions in connection with the Bill which we are now discussing. The Rule is suspended. For my part, I had thought that the second Bill to which the hon. Gentleman referred would go through. We observed the clownish antics of his colleagues in the Committee corridor last Session when important matters dealt with by the next Bill on the Order Paper


were being decided under the procedure governing Private Members' Bills, and I should have thought that the less he said about that the better.
May I now proceed with my examination of this Bill? I was trying to find out what the Ministry would be willing to tell us about the process of using one particular technical process. I took the simple one of Terylene socks. We have been told about that. What happens when the Greek Army wants Terylene socks? It has heard about the British Army, and soon we shall have to supply Terylene socks to the Greek Army. In Clause 1 of the Bill there is ample provision for a Government Department to sell them off, if they do not like them—
… to sell to any person any articles made in the exercise of the powers conferred by this section which are no longer required for the purpose for which they were made.
We had enough trouble over the disposal of surplus war materials in the years after the last war—

Mr. Orbach: What a racket!

Mr. Parkin: What a racket indeed.
Let us remember that then the Continent of Europe was littered with American motor vehicles which had been sold for low prices, and, strangely enough, there appeared to be a lot of gentlemen ready to sell spares for those vehicles. It was a very well-organised business. The international repercussions between the allies at this stage are very frightening, and obviously not the same as was in the minds of Members of Parliament who had more serious things to think about at the time when we embarked on the fighting of a war and when we were almost alone. But now it is sixteen years after. Have not the Government made any progress? Is it not right to discuss this matter now in a wider sense?
I do not now propose to use a hypothetical example of what constitutes defence material. If it was, I might be accused of inventing scare stories. The example I am about to give can hardly he believed, but it is true. It will be recollected that at the time of the Korean War there was in this country a very sharp price rise over a whole range of articles, caused by a rise in international prices and the prices of raw materials and commodities. At that time I was engaged in the furniture trade. In the up-

holstery trade a very important ingredient is something called coconut fibre. It comes from Ceylon. Some coconuts have straight wigs, and these are used for making door mats, and some have wigs which are curly, and these are used in the upholstery trade. By means of certain processes and "know-how" it is possible to put the kink into a straight-haired coconut—this is one of the "believe it or not" stories.
An American gentleman arrived in Ceylon and bought the whole crop of coconuts. As a result, the Board of Trade had to raise the price of retail furniture in this country by 33 per cent., and that was at the time of price control. That happened because the American believed that the possession of a year's crop of coconut fibre from Ceylon was essential for the defence of his country. That is something which has already happened. The possibility of what might happen in future is quite fantastic. I will not develop the point, because I am much more concerned about the part of this Bill dealing with civil defence.
When the Home Secretary came into the Chamber this evening I hoped that he would deal with the matter, but he stayed only for a moment. I think that the right hon. Gentleman was brought in only by the bell which announced a count, but I thought that we might have a contribution from him about civil defence. The Government have a plan to evacuate 12 million people, including nearly all my constituents, in the case of an emergency. According to the latest information from Paris, and from the technical advisers to the Prime Minister, that evacuation has to take place in fourteen minutes. Up to now the Home Office has produced no plan. We can only suppose that it is relying on somebody's secret patent. I hoped that this matter would be developed to a certain extent tonight. One searches round for information about the development of civil defence. The Minister of Health is responsible for a certain section of operations for civil defence. Why is not the right hon. Gentleman present? There is no prospect of his colleagues telling us—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Even were the Minister present, if he started to reply to the hon. Gentleman I should rule him out of order.

Mr. Parkin: Well, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I hope to be able to persuade you that the activities of the Minister of Health in fact come within the ambit of this Bill.
I have read the Report of the Ministry of Health for this year, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade will read it on some occasion. He will find that on page 141 there is a reference to,
Supplies of Equipment for the Civil Defence Services.
It starts off, rather mournfully,
Owing to the need for economies in Government spending, purchases during the year were restricted.
So much for the citizens of Paddington and civil defence. The reference goes on:
… A small programme of research and development continued and among the items considered was a light-weight stretcher with fibre-glass poles.
What on earth is the Minister of Health doing with a little "empire" within his Department dealing with fibre-glass poles to make a special kind of stretcher for civil defence purposes?
If these experiments come to anything, will the Minister explain whether they are being carried out in consultation with people who have the "know-how" about fibre-glass poles? What does the Minister of Health know about fibre-glass poles? I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman has to go to someone who makes them, either under a patent or by technical "know-how". Suppose his researches lead to the discovery that it would be a useful kind of stretcher to use in all Departments of the Health Service. What do we know about the use of patents and "know-how"? Do we say that we shall have to pay more for the fibre-glass poles if they are to be used for ordinary accident and stretcher cases and less if they are to be stored for civil defence? What sort of nonsense is this, where the scientific research and development of the country is divided up into these little compartments.
I have given these simple examples because I hoped that it would be within the intellectual capacity of the Parliamentary Secretary to reply to me.

Mr. Cooper: The hon. Gentleman has given us as an illustration a case involving fibre-glass poles. May I declare an

interest and say that I know something of that industry because I earn part of my living through it? There are no patents by which—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We cannot have a debate on fibre-glass poles.

Mr. Parkin: I should, of course, never find myself in disagreement with you on a question of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I am sorry to have to disagree with you on the question of the desirability of a debate on fibre-glass poles. I will leave that matter, but were I not able to make my point with that one example of something which is produced by technical "know-how", I should be tempted to traverse the whole range of the patents involved in the production of the Britannia aircraft. That was developed from an aircraft sponsored by the Government—the Brabazon—at a cost of £14 million and sold for £50,000. That was a scheme sponsored by the Government out of money raised by taxation for military purposes. However, such a course would rather complicate and prolong my speech, and as there is no prospect of a reply from the Minister of Supply I must leave that for another occasion.
Surely this is not the moment to introduce a provocative and weak Bill of this kind and announce that the Government do not know where they stand in their research and development policy or their defence policy or their relationship with their allies? Things were different a few years ago when we had to get what we could in the way of support from our allies and in the way of defence material. It would have been understandable had the Minister of Supply then said, "We are not in a position to ask for reciprocal agreements." But not to talk about reciprocal agreements tonight is completely unrealistic.
What do we get in return for making available to our allies all the "know-how" of British industry? Today the position is not that we have to depend on the United States of America. Today the United States is in the front line and is asking us to put ourselves in the front line instead and to accept a short-range weapon which they are to produce. We are being asked to be good enough to use that weapon in order that we shall suffer from any retaliation and


save them from attack by the long-range weapons to which they have no reply.
That is a very different international situation. If the President of the Board of Trade knew what he was talking about and if the Minister of Supply had any drive, they would put the Bill back into the pigeonhole and start negotiating with our allies on reciprocal exchange of patents and technical "know-how", and they would not come back until they had a comprehensive scheme.
We shall no doubt, have a long discussion on the Bill in Committee. I hope that the Minister responsible will recognise—and I hope it will be pressed—that, in so far as the Bill concerns a matter of sovereignty in our relationship with our allies, it is of constitutional importance and the Committee stage ought therefore to be taken on the Floor of the House—if the Bill is not withdrawn now, as it ought to be.

6.1 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: There was an interesting controversy a little while ago between my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) and my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) as to whether the lamentable speech made by the President of the Board of Trade in moving the Second Reading of the Bill was due to incompetence and ineptitude, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey thought, or to a calculated and deliberate attempt, as my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough thought, to conceal information from the House. Both my hon. Friends—and indeed every other hon. Member who has spoken—were unanimous in condemning the speech as totally inadequate and almost contemptuous in its disrespect of this House. Therefore, it is not unnatural that some explanation of it should be sought.
I prefer to take the charitable view. I cannot believe that the President of the Board of Trade is so incompetent and inept as to have made that speech without having read the Bill and without having understood his brief. I cannot believe that it was anything but deliberate, on a par with the policy of the Government, of which we have had occasion to complain in the past, of deliberately keeping vital information from the House. On this

matter The Times newspaper has commented:
Keeping the Commons in the dark seems to be becoming a habit of Mr. Macmillan's Ministry.
This is bad. I am sorry to say that I think there is a sinister purpose behind it. Surely there is some explanation. I have not re-read the Act of 1953 or the debate in another place, but I have heard the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice). Surely it is a matter of some significance that this truncated Bill should be introduced at this time.
I ask myself, what is the explanation? There is not a single reference in the Queen's Speech to the Bill, although the Gracious Speech was introduced only a matter of six weeks ago. There could have been no intention at that time to introduce the Bill. What has happened between that event six weeks ago and today which has made this Bill suddenly necessary and has caused the President of the Board of Trade to introduce it with a speech which seems to be a masterpiece of inadequacy and camouflage?
I do not think it is difficult to see what has happened; there has been a significant change in international relations. There have been discussions between the Prime Minister and President Eisenhower. There is to be a meeting of N.A.T.O. in Paris next week for the purpose, as it now appears, of introducing radical and far-reaching changes in national policy. There is talk in the air of interdependence and of a pooling of sovereignty, with regard to the Armed Forces of the Crown, but the Prime Minister and other Ministers have not deigned to give the House information on these matters.
One thing is obvious. If there is truth in the rumours, the Bill would he necessary to implement the process. If there is no truth in the rumours, the Bill would not be necessary. It has not been sufficiently stressed hitherto that one of the most remarkable features of the Bill, which is a significant departure from the Measure of 1953 and from the recommendations of the Howitt Committee, is that under the Bill the Government will not only be able to use patented inventions and technical information for the purpose of Her Majesty's Government, but will be able to convey that information to other countries, to foreign Powers.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll) indicated dissent.

Mr. Fletcher: Let me quote from the Minister's own Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. At the end of the first page it refers to
… articles designed or adapted for the use of armed forces and required for the armed forces of the Crown or for supply to allied countries for their defence or the defence of other allied countries, or to the United Nations, and components of such articles …
We are under an obligation to scrutinise the Bill very carefully. That duty is particularly incumbent upon us when we get such an inadequate explanation as we have had this afternoon from the Minister. What is the primary object of the Bill? The President of the Board of Trade did have the decency to admit that the naked and unashamed object is to authorise breaches of contract, which we are being asked to sanction. It might he one thing to say that that would be legitimate in the interests of the defence of this country, but no explanation has been given to us why it is necessary in the interests of the defence of other countries.
That brings me to the point about reciprocity which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin). Could the Parliamentary Secretary tell us, whether, as has been suggested, the Bill is brought forward as part of some international arrangement that there should be mutual arrangements between this country and allied countries? If there has been any such international arrangement, which I doubt, have adequate arrangements been made for reciprocity so that British interests may not suffer?
If, on the other hand, the Bill is not brought forward as part and parcel of some international arrangement but is unilateral by Her Majesty's Government for the benefit of foreign Powers, we are entitled to ask the Minister whether adequate steps have been taken for the protection of British interests as against those of other countries. The Government have a notoriously bad record in their dealings with allied countries in financial matters. We know how they have had the worse of the bargain with the West German Government over the contribution by the Germans toward the maintenance of British Forces in Germany. If adequate

steps had been taken some years ago we should not be in the dismal position in which we are today. The Germans are making less than their proper contribution at a time when German economy is expanding and, thanks to the present Government, our own economy has received a set-back. That is only one illustration. I think our commercial relations with the United States in regard to the interchange of defence expenditure and so forth leave a great deal to be desired.
I am very concerned to see the provisions in the Bill which extend not only to the defence of this country but to the defence of other countries, without, so far as I can see, any adequate provision for compensation. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that there is nothing whatever in the Howitt Committee Report to justify this? It is pertinent to observe, so far as the Board of Trade places any reliance on the recommendations of the Howitt Committee, that that Committee's Report said, in paragraph 17, that it came to its conclusion:
… only after considerable reflection—that the balance of argument is in favour of the Government being given by permanent legislation …
what they want. In view of that, it is all the more necessary for us to see that there are all proper safeguards written into the Bill.
Apart from those to which I have referred already, like my hon. Friends I attach very considerable importance to these unusual powers being given in each individual case only on the recommendation of a Minister of the Crown As my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North pointed out, it is very curious that from the definition of "competent authority" the President of the Board of Trade is omitted. That can lead only to the inference that these powers are to be delegated. We do not know how far down the scale they are to be delegated. It is said that there is some constitutional point involved in making legislative provision for a certificate of the Minister to be given. I do not take that view. If there were anything in that argument I think it would be effectively disposed of by the quotation from Lord Simon, then Lord Chancellor, giving the decision of the House of Lords in the Thetis case of Duncan and Campbell.
This is a bad Bill. I have no enthusiasm about it at all. If it is given a Second Reading I believe it will require very considerable amendment in Committee. I hope that before much further progress has been made with it we shall get a really clear and honest explanation from the Government as to the motives which have caused them to introduce it at this stage.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. Denis Howell: I am grateful for the opportunity of speaking about this Bill, which I regard as an exercise in the entrenchment of capitalism in this country. When I read the Bill, when I read the Report which preceded it last year, and when I read the debate in another place in 1953 I was alarmed. I think it right and proper that this House should properly debate the provisions of the Bill.
Contrary to the impertinent intervention of an hon. Member opposite who suggested that we were not interested in this Bill, I would say that we are very much interested in it. I cannot think of a Bill having been introduced into this House since I have been here which has authorised the expenditure of so much public money with so little control. I always thought it was one of the great principles of this House that where public money was to be expended in any way at all there should be the maximum amount of Parliamentary control over it. That, primarily, is what the Bill is about.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) said, in a brilliant speech, the 1953 Measure was much wider and did not concern itself only with defence but with matters concerning the National Health Service and education. I find it rather illuminating that this Government are prepared to do this sort of thing and not to sanction large sums of public money being spent and authorise the selling of "know-how," as the President put it, except in matters of defence. I find that an interesting psychological phenomena. It is the sort of thing we can expect from hon. Members opposite that where matters of defence are concerned they are prepared to go to limits to which they are not prepared to go, in time of peace, in order to use the same methods to improve the health, education and wellbeing of the people of this country.
I find that an extremely illuminating psychological process to which I object very strenuously. I do not apologise in this Chamber for being a Socialist. My conception of Socialism is that the whole of the resources of the State should be used for the benefit of the whole community. I think the Bill is a disgraceful chapter in the history of this Government. They have been forced by the backwoodsmen of another place to take away the 1953 Measure, which was eminently sensible and was commended to noble Lords in a brilliant speech by Lord Mancroft. They were unable to hold the hordes at bay and now, four years later, they bring this anaemic version before the House.
As my hon. Friends have mentioned, there are international complications. Recently the Foreign Secretary has proposed new arrangements at the International Court at The Hague because the old arrangements did not suit this country. That is as it may be and it would be out of order to follow that topic in this debate, but it is not out of order—indeed it is extremely pertinent—to ask whether countries to whom we are to sell armaments and defence materials under this Measure are prepared to make a complete exchange upon a similar basis of the "know-how" and technical information which they possess. If other countries are not prepared to do that. I submit that it is outrageous that the British taxpayer should be asked to provide large sums of public money in order that the results of confidential technical information—for which, thank goodness, British scientists can continually keep us in the van of world opinion and development—may be given to other countries without a proper system of reciprocity.
In another place, Lord Mancroft told us in December, 1953, that under the terms of the Regulations we had supplied aeroplanes to France, Norway, Denmark and Venezuela and had supplied tanks to Belgium, Holland and Egypt. We know what happened to the tanks we supplied to Egypt. I should have thought that unhappy chapter in British military and diplomatic history would cause us to ask for far more information than we have yet been given. According to Lord Mancroft, under the terms of this Bill we could supply Centurion tanks to Egypt. They would be provided by the British taxpayer, the British scientist and British


industry, but we should have as little control over what happened to that military equipment when it had left our shores as we have had in the past.
I regard that as a very sorry business. I am amazed that only one or two hon. Members opposite are here today. I should have thought that we could have expected to see large numbers present of those who have worked up synthetic indignation and who call themselves the Independent Conservative group. Surely we could reasonably expect to see them here in order to defend British interests on a matter of vital importance.

Mr. Mellish: And the Liberals.

Mr. Howell: One never expects the Liberals to be present unless a by-election is pending and all the by-elections are over for the time being. No doubt we shall see them back again when another such event occurs.
I do not want to trespass on the time of the House but I am tempted to read the whole of the speech which Lord Man-croft made, because it was a brilliant exercise in what was necessary for the public good. It was a first-class speech. Indeed, I have read it three times today; I could hardly believe that the noble Lord had made such a first-class speech. I will content myself with quoting one or two of his statements. As reported in column 772 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the House of Lards, Lord Mancroft said:
It is becoming increasingly the fashion in industry to keep industrial processes secret, and to rely on such agreements and the Copyright Act to protect new inventions and methods of production, rather than to take out patents in relation to them.
Later, referring to powers given by the Defence Regulations, Lord Mancroft said:
These enable a Secretary of State, the Admiralty, the Board of Trade, or the Minister of Supply, if it appears to them necessary, in the interests of the defence of the realm or otherwise in the public interest, to give directions to any person requiring him to furnish to any specified person or authority such information relating to any invention, design or process as may be specified in the directions or demanded of him by that authority or person.
That gives in far better language than any which I could use what I consider to be the public good in this matter. But that is not the position now, and I regard that fact as extremely serious. I draw

the attention of the House to Clause 2 (6) which reads:
Nothing in this section or in any authorisation given thereunder shall be construed as authorising the disclosure to a competent authority or any other person of any technical information to which this section applies in contravention of any agreement.
In commending that to the House this afternoon, the President of the Board of Trade used words which I wrote down; he said that this was a "specific disclaimer". That was the language which he used.
Where does this take us? These are legal matters but we have to apply lay minds to them. The Government have always had the power to require the use of information in any secret or patented agreement for the purposes of the Crown. I think we all agree that that is right. We have to bear in mind that we are dealing with the provision of a large amount of public money in defence matters, particularly for the provision of tanks, aeroplanes and ships. We may also be dealing with the provision of nuclear energy, hydrogen bombs and inter-continental ballistic missiles. As I understand it, the Government have always had the power, if there are any secret or patented agreements in these matters, to require their use for the purposes of the Crown.
Under the 1953 Bill they could go further. Where the taxpayer was paying the piper, they could not only insist that any patented agreement or patented process which could be used economically in the public interest should be so used, but they could see that it was used and could demand what the President of the Board of Trade referred to as the "know-how" of that process. That was the previous position. If any giant industrial combine, such as a chemical or an engineering combine, had one of these secret or patented processes, we could say, "We want that process used for the benefit of the defence of the realm and we will pay adequate compensation to the inventor."
That was fair enough. The 1953 Bill also said not only that the process should be used, but that the Government were entitled to know the technical details of that process and all about it. Under Clause 2 (6), the Government specifically exclude themselves from ever knowing the


technical details of these secret and patented processes which, in the main, are being developed as a result of the expenditure of a large amount of taxpayers' money. I think that this is an extremely serious matter, because we all know that in this country it is not open to any firm to manufacture defence weapons. No firm can freely manufacture defence weapons on this scope and scale. It can manufacture them only for the purpose of the defence of the country, and this is done directly or indirectly with public money.
If public money is used during the research or production work and, as a result of its expenditure, new processes become known, I submit to the House that since those processes have been built up with the use of public money it is a scandalous state of affairs that the Government should specifically say that in no circumstances can they be disclosed to any servant of Her Majesty's Government. I hope the House will agree with my contention, and I am sure that my hon. and right hon. Friends will agree with it.
With modern weapons and with all that 20th century science conjures up in our minds, we could have a situation in which the Government obtained the weapons by these means but, because they did not know all about the processes, were unable properly to use the weapons. That would create a very serious state of affairs. If an emergency occurred and we had large numbers of very involved weapons requiring a considerable amount of technical knowledge, it would be a serious state of affairs if the State were provided with the weapons but not with the means of knowing how to deal with them, if they went wrong in action.
I hope that the Minister will deal with these very serious matters when he replies to the debate. When we look at the Defence Estimates, we see the enormous sums of money which the country is spending on defence. I can only repeat what I said earlier: indeed. I can think of no better word. In my opinion, it is an absolute scandal that while this large amount of public money is spent on these new processes the Government are specifically excluding themselves from knowing all about the weapons which the taxpayer is providing.
I want to read another passage of Lord Mancroft's speech, as reported in column 774. He said:
Although it is realised—and I emphasise this—that this is a wide power for a Government Department to possess, these two Departments feel that the existence of this power, and its use, or the possibility of its use, may be necessary for them in carrying out their function of supplying the Armed Services, and they are positive that, without it, vital information might be withheld from them. Not only is it necessary where a person is unwilling, for his own purposes, to divulge information, but also where he is under a contractual obligation not to do so, and would, but for the existence of this power, feel himself bound not to break his contract by divulging it. It will he clear that the power is necessary during a war. But since its main use must be in the development of a new piece of equipment, it must equally be necessary in peace time when it is our object, by providing the forces with the best equipment to give them the strength to prevent war.
Lord Mancroft was commending these powers to their Lordships. He was saying that two Government Departments specifically requested these powers. In fact, he said that these powers were included,
At the specific request of my right hon. Friends the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Minister of Supply,…
It is an extremely peculiar situation that in 1953 the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Minister of Supply said that it was essential for the defence of the realm and for making equipment for the Armed Forces even in time of peace that we must have these powers, and they were specifically included in the Bill at their request; yet in 1957 the same Government deliberately exclude themselves under Clause 2 (6) from having the powers. I think the House is entitled to an explanation. Lord Mancroft could not have been more forthright and specific had he chosen any other form of language.
I think it is fair to say that the President's opening speech was so nebulous and uninformed that it meant nothing intelligible to hon. Members. I do not know whether the President is taking any interest, but could he at any rate ensure that his hon. Friend, when he winds up, tells us why these powers, which Lord Mancroft specifically said had to be included in the 1953 Bill, at the request of the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Minister of Supply, are specifically excluded from this Bill? I think that


that is a fair enough request to make in all conscience.
Lord Mancroft stated other things which could be provided under the 1953 Bill. They are his examples, not mine. He said:
… during the war, vitamins were imported and manufactured to fortify foodstuffs, for supply to the public."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 1st December, 1953; Vol. 184, c. 769–74.]
Then he mentioned concrete sleepers. Even the railways have been involved. Coal cutters for the collieries and refrigerators in certain circumstances are also mentioned. It seems to me that none of us on this side will disapprove of these powers being used for those purposes. If Lord Mancroft could commend them in another place in 1953, why are they specifically excluded in 1957?
I want to refer primarily to matters outside defence in the original Bill and which, in my view, should be in this Bill. As has been mentioned, the Inventions and Designs (Crown Use) Bill, 1953, could be used for the production of drugs, medicines and appliances required, first, by the Minister of Health for supply to patients under Part II of the National Service Act; secondly, for the Secretary of State for Scotland for the same purposes; and, thirdly, to the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance also for the supply of appliances to injured persons and to pensioners. This is a very serious matter.
When we consider the drugs bill, we have spent on drugs alone in the general practitioners service in 1957–58 an estimated figure of just under £4 million. In the hospital service the expenditure is going up at such an alarming rate that even the Government are disturbed, and they appointed, I think, two Committees to look into the cost of drugs and provisions. No wonder the expenditure has risen from an actual expenditure in 1955–56 of just under £15½ million on drugs, dressings, medical and surgical appliances to an estimated expenditure in 1957–58 of just under £18 million. That is an increase of £2½ million in twelve months on the provision of drugs, dressings, medical and surgical appliances in the Health Service to hospitals. We know that that is because of the amount of proprietary drugs being used.
As far as I can understand from reading the Guillebaud and other Reports on this matter—not very satisfactory Reports, in my view, but they have to a certain extent investigated it—this colossal expenditure is due to the fact that, quite rightly, doctors are prescribing new antibiotics and other drugs. I refer to this matter because it was specifically included in the 1953 Bill, but is not included in this Bill. I urge that the provision which the Government have taken out should be put back.
The cost of these drugs is so high that the Government had to pay the manufacturers of these proprietary medicines and drugs without any knowledge of the "know-how" or technique or the costing. We know that none of these drugs would be used were it not for the Government's activities in the National Health Service. The druggists and pharmacists supplying these preparations are doing it because they are financed almost exclusively out of the public purse.
It is right in these circumstances, and indeed essential, that the Government, if they are to check the rise in the cost of drugs, should be able to find out the "know-how" and make-up of these drugs and make sure whether or not the taxpayer is being properly charged, whether these items are properly costed and whether this amount of money, running into many millions, is to a certain extent wasteful and extravagant. I should have thought that the Government would retain these powers which would have entitled them to have the "know-how". They could have gone to the druggists and said, "You are now getting somewhere in the region of £20 million a year for the provision of drugs for the National Health Service. We want the 'know-how' and to be able to check your costs and see that the taxpayer is not being fleeced." That is the story today. The Minister is deliberately excluding from this Bill the provisions in the 1953 Bill.
I will conclude now because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. It seems to me to be an extremely sorry business indeed. If I may say so, it is a serious business, too. In 1953 the bastions of private enterprise came to the Lords, and in spite of an excellent speech by Lord Mancroft, their Lordships could be so forthright in their opposition to the Bill that the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, had to be fetched


from an outside engagement to withdraw the Bill from further consideration in another place. It is a lamentable business. A Committee has looked into these practices, as a result of which we have now another Bill. But we have not had one word of justification for the present changes in the Measure which was considered in another place four years ago. It seems to me to be so regrettable that it should be pressed to a Division.
I must confess that when I first looked at it, I thought that the Bill would be something on which both sides would agree. I suppose, after suitable explanation, we might still agree on it, but the fact is that at twenty minutes to seven tonight, after several hours of debate, we have not been given one iota of information which would entitle us to make up our minds one way or the other. We can go only on the evidence, completely unanswered, contained in a number of speeches from this side of the House.
I hope, therefore, that my right hon. and learned Friend will think very carefully before advising us not to press this matter to a Division. If we have no more information than we now have, I do not see how we can avoid a Division, in view of the criticisms of the way in which the Government are throwing away millions of £s of public money without proper explanation.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I think that I have heard every speech in this debate, with one rather important exception. I did not hear the speech made by the President of the Board of Trade. I apologise for that, but from the references made by my hon. Friends to that speech, I gather that the fact that I did not hear it is not likely to do the right hon. Gentleman any injustice or me any harm. It appears to have been a speech that qualified the President of the Board of Trade for a new Ministerial title. From now on he will be the "Secretary of State for Don't Know How". I say that only on the assumption that the references of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. D. Howell) are right.
If they will forgive my saying so, I regard my hon. Friends' astonishment at the character of this Bill as a little naïve. The inadequacies, the things it leaves out, the things it does not say, and the things

it does not do—these are of the very essence of the fundamental issues that divide the Conservative Party from the Socialist Party.
In order to see what is the purpose of the Bill, one has only to turn to paragraph 2 in page 1 of the Howitt Report. That paragraph reads:
Our enquiry is concerned with Government contracts…
And then this sentence:
It is obviously important that firms undertaking such contracts should be able to make use of the best technical knowledge and experience available to them.
Nobody has any quarrel with that. The House is united that, for those purposes, the Government should be able to command all the resources of our country—everything we have, including all our technical skill, and all our industrial and scientific secrets. We are all in favour of pooling, of not standing on individual rights of property, or ownership or privilege. We are all in favour, at any rate, for this limited purpose, of pooling all that, and of using it for the defence of the freedom and sovereignty of our country.
My hon. Friends sometimes fail to see that when Conservatives, and Conservative Governments, adopt that principle they are making a very considerable ideological sacrifice, because they are conceding the whole of the Socialist case. They say "When our need is greatest—away with all the sacred rights of private property, away with private enterprise, away with competition, away with leaving everyone free to make what he can and to do what he likes with his own". When the nation's interests are at stake, the Conservative Party is ready to concede that the only way to deal with the situation is public ownership, public control, public direction, whatever individual sacrifices are involved.
Some of my hon. Friends have been talking of the history of the Bill and have been going back to 1953. Let us not go back to 1953. We must go back much further—to September, 1939, when we passed, in one afternoon, through all its stages—I think in both Houses of Parliament—the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act which gave the Government—a Conservative Government, there was not then a Coalition Government—full and complete powers with not a voice


raised against it. If it is right when the interests of the country are at stake in war, why is it wrong in peace?
The Conservatives are, at any rate, prepared now to take one further step. Except for the Defence Regulations they have never, in peace time, been prepared to do anything about this even for defence purposes. They are now prepared to do something. I agree with one hon. Gentleman opposite when he said that one thing that we can all be agreed about is that it is a very good thing to scrap all Defence Regulations passed in war-time conditions, and, instead, to incorporate them in an Act of Parliament which can be scrutinised in all its stages through Parliament, including the Committee stage, and subject to all the powers of amendment and addition.
They are prepared to make it statutory for defence purposes, but, even then, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, they are very nervous and hesitant about it. They have wrapped this Measure round with so many safeguards as almost—as my hon. Friend the Member for All Saints pointed out—to defeat their purpose. Nevertheless, let us give them credit for attempting, where the necessity is, to take the right view; that the State must take control of national resources and apply them in the interests of the community.
Before I come to my second point—and I do not intend to occupy the attention of the House for very long—one thing rather surprises me. I said that, so far, we had all been ready to adopt this course in order to defend the sovereignty, the freedom and the independence of our country. But, Mr. Speaker, this is really the astonishing part of the Bill. Our sovereignty, independence and freedom are not in danger from our potential enemies, or neutrals. They are in most danger now from our allies.
It would be out of order to attempt to anticipate, and still more out of order to attempt to discuss, anything that may happen in Paris next week, but, without going to Paris next week, let us look at the terms of the Bill. Let us look at Clause 1:
The following shall be substituted for subsection (6) of section forty-six of the Patents Act, 1949…
What do we substitute?

For the purposes of this and the next following section 'the services of the Crown' shall be deemed to include—

(a) the supply to the government of any country outside the United Kingdom, in pursuance of an agreement or arrangement between Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the government of that country, of articles required—

(i) for the defence of that country; or
(ii) for the defence of any other country whose government is party to any agreement or arrangement…"


Not content with that, paragraph (b) includes something much wider, namely, the supply to the United Nations—and it does not stop there; it goes on to say:
or to the government of any country belonging to that organisation, in pursuance of an agreement or arrangement between Her Majesty's Government and that organisation or government, of articles required for any armed forces operating in pursuance of a resolution of that organisation or any organ of that organisation.
What does this mean? It means that the powers which the Government are taking under the Bill will place at the disposal of any of our allies, or any N.A.T.O. country, whatever industrial or scientific secrets the Government obtain by the operation of the Bill—which can include some very important industrial ones.
In my lifetime we have fought two world wars. All sorts of reasons have been given why one or the other or both were fought, but one reason which is given, which is common to both of them and to all protagonists of them, is that we were fighting in order to prevent the domination of Europe by Germany.
Western Germany is now a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Under the Bill industrial secrets may come into the possession of the Government, who may be compelled by the Treaty, and empowered by the Bill, to hand them over to Germany. What safeguards will there be that these secrets will be used in Germany purely for military purposes and in the service of the armed forces? After two successful wars to prevent Germany from dominating Europe, who, at the moment, is dominating Europe? It is the country that lost both the wars. And here are the Conservative Government and the Conservative Party departing from all their private enterprise principles and adopting Socialist principles for this limited purpose, in


order to increase the ability of our industrial competitors to compete with us.
I do not understand it. The Clause must have been put in for some purpose. It must have the results that I have mentioned. The very Bill which gives the Government power, and the treaty which may put them under an obligation to use the power for these purposes, get rid of the very limited, narrow, and few socially beneficent purposes which the 1953 Measure could have conferred upon this country.
The other general point which I wish to make is that if it is right that the Government should be able to command all these powers for military purposes, even in peace-time—and, a fortiori, in war—why in the world should not the Government have the same powers to defend the interests of this country in every other respect? Under what principle should we stop there? We are not really in danger. There is no man alive who believes that we are in serious or imminent danger of military attack. I am not saying that there may not be an ultimate danger, or that there may not have been a danger in the past, but nobody seriously believes that there is any urgent danger now, whatever may have brought about the change.
If we are in any danger, we are in danger in other ways. It is because in so many other parts of the world, whatever their economic or social systems may be, expansionist economies are going ahead, full of life and vitality, pioneering, growing and expanding. And we are boasting today because our trade deficit was reduced last month. To what point?—to the point at which the Conservative Government found it when my right hon. Friends were defeated in the last General Election. It is the smallest trade deficit for seven years. That takes us right back to the days of the Labour Government.
It means that for seven years we have been getting worse and worse and worse. While everydody else has been going forward we have been going back. While everybody else has been buoyant and progressive, we have been frustrated and ineffective—and all that the Government can find to do at this time of day is to weaken our position by allowing our friends to

gain control of some of our country's resources and to hand them over to our competitors, in the name of freedom and independence.
That is the situation. I do not find it funny. The right hon. Gentleman would do well to make some small effort to understand what he is doing before he finds anything comic in those who are trying to explain the position. He might have prevented all this if he had explained his Bill at the beginning. But he thought that he could get the Bill through on the nod. He cannot. The principle involved is a sound one, but I am not prepared to vote for it if it is to be limited to this purpose and used in this way. If we are going to have Socialism, let us have it for constructive purposes and not merely for those of world-wide catastrophe.

6.57 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): We have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate, marred only by the unnecessarily offensive remarks made about my right hon. Friend and his speech, which were quite undeserved. I shall not go over the remarks; I merely refer to them in passing.
At times I almost thought I was listening to the Second Reading debate of the 1953 Bill and not the present one, but I realise that hon. Members were deprived of debating the earlier Bill and it was understandable that they should wish to make some reference to its Clauses when discussing this Bill.

Mr. D. Howell: I hope the hon. Member will tell us why the Government have departed from the earlier Bill.

Mr. Erroll: I shall satisfy the hon. Member on that point if I can.
I want to refer to one or two of the general issues raised by hon. Members opposite, because if I can satisfy them on two of the major points it may make my explanations of points of detail somewhat simpler.
Nearly every speaker referred in one way or another to Clause 1(1), which includes, as a definition of "the services of the Crown", the supply to allied countries of articles required for the defence of other allied countries. Perhaps a convenient name for this would


be the reciprocity point. I would point out, first, that this is nothing very new. The inclusion of such services has been recognised for many years and was enshrined in the 1949 legislation. All that we are doing here is making two small extensions to the existing practice, the two small extensions being, first, to include as allies any force of the United Nations and, secondly, to enable what are called offshore purchases to rank for these facilities. Therefore, these two small extensions really do not make very much difference.
Hon. Gentlemen have quite rightly pointed out that here is a big issue of principle—the question whether we are giving away something and whether we ought not to be getting something in return. We must remember what it is that we are making available. We are simply making available to our allies some of the results of our defence research, and manufacturing information. It is important that we should do all we can to help our allies, because we want strong allies, not weak ones.
If it is a matter of complaint about off-shore purchases, surely it is only to our advantage that we should do all we can to encourage the United States of America, in particular, to place off-shore orders in Britain rather than in other countries, other things being equal. This is a small but nevertheless a definite additional inducement to countries to place their off-shore orders in Britain rather than in other countries which do not have the same facilities.
Having said that, I recognise the point which several hon. Members have made in asking if this is not the time to raise the whole question of reciprocity. What about patents, defence information and unpublished manufacturing information available in other countries? Were we being accorded equal rights and facilities? Hon. Members may like to know that there is at present a N.A.T.O. Committee studying the whole question of the interchange of this information, and we will naturally follow the proceedings of this Committee with the greatest interest.
It is inevitably slow and complicated work, because, as hon. Members will realise, patent law differs from country to country, and this is an extremely complicated branch of the law. It is inevitably

a slow process in trying to achieve developments of this sort, however desirable.
Now I should like to turn to the question which I think was raised in one form or other by every hon. Gentleman opposite who has spoken—the question of the extent of the services of the Crown. Here we must distinguish between patents and unpublished manufacturing information. In the case of patents and registered designs, it has always been the case that the Crown could have the use of these patents in return for granting the privilege of the patent to the patent holder. It is then a question how far such services of the Crown can go. For example, patent provisions covering the services of the Crown might include hospital equipment for use in hospital, but it is questionable whether it would include the supply of appliances or equipment for use in the home, and not on State premises. There is no exact definition and no absolute dividing line, and borderline cases would have to be tested in the courts.
I might mention in passing, and I think it would be of interest to hon. Gentlemen opposite, that Section 1 (1, b) of the 1953 Act mentioned drugs particularly, which I think was a matter raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice). We were informed subsequently that that subsection might not, in fact, cover the services of the Crown, and, therefore, in its form at that time it was not as watertight as the right hon. and learned Gentleman may have imagined.

Sir F. Soskice: I am very much obliged to the Minister for his careful reply. May I point out that the purpose of the wording of the 1953 Act was expressly declared by the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading to be to put beyond doubt the very doubts which the Minister says now exist? I want to know why the words which remove the doubt have themselves been removed.

Mr. Mellish: Now the hon. Gentleman is in trouble.

Mr. Erroll: It will not be for the first time, either, will it? I can only say that we thought we were right in 1953, but when we had another look at it we found that we had not got it entirely correct.

Mr. Frederick Mulley: Surely, his noble Friend in another place


also referred to the question of gas masks, which he thought were to be dealt with by the same provision which is now excluded? Gas masks are a civil defence possibility. Are they to be covered by the present Bill or not?

Mr. Erroll: I would say almost certainly yes. Civilian gas masks, to which I assume the hon. Gentleman refers, would certainly appear to be articles designed or adapted for use for one of the purposes defined in the Civil Defence Act, 1948.

Mr. Frederick Willey: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, will he deal also with the point about communications equipment?

Mr. Erroll: I am still in the middle of my own point, and if I may be allowed to complete it, I will be very glad to deal with that of the hon. Gentleman.
I was explaining the position regarding patents and registered designs where the use in the service of the Crown has always been a relatively wide use. In the case of "know-how", on the other hand, we have in this Bill, as a number of hon. Gentlemen have pointed out, restricted it to defence purposes only. Several hon. Members have suggested that this was a wrong thing to do, and the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) quoted the Howitt Report. I think it would be only fair that I should quote it in support of our reasons for doing what we did. The reason why we are limiting it to defence purposes was not because the Howitt Committee only took evidence from the imposing list of bodies mentioned in the Appendix to its Report, but because it would have been a great disadvantage to Britain if we were to impose too wide a use of "know-how" in a manner which the hon. Gentleman would not like to have happened.
Several hon. Gentlemen opposite have referred to backwardness in the sphere of technical work and science, which I would not myself accept, but if that is so, of course, there is a great advantage to Britain in making "know-how" agreements with the United States and benefiting from their "know-how". We were very impressed with the suggestion in the Howitt Report, and with what we have been told elsewhere, that American manufacturers may be reluctant to conclude

"know-how" agreements with British manufacturers if there was a danger of the "know-how" being used for purposes other than defence.
The same argument applies where we are ahead of other countries and where a British licensor licenses a foreign licensee for strictly limited purposes and then finds the agreement had been broken by the foreign Government, which would then be able to quote back at the licensor the precedent established by the British Government. I suggest that we should be in danger of losing far more than we would gain if we were to extend the "know-how" provision as it stands to full use covered by Crown use of registered patents and designs.

Mr. Mulley: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with another point which puzzles me? He has said that the Government are following the recommendations of the Howitt Report in not extending this Bill beyond defence. If we look at some of the paragraphs of that Report, and also consider the terms of reference of the Howitt Committee, we find that the Committee had no power to consider wider use. Its terms of reference were—
To consider and report

(i) whether the Crown should have permanent powers to authorise the use, in connection with defence contracts, of unpatented inventions and unregistered designs"


and so on. If the Howitt Report does deal with this point, as I agree it does, it deals with the point rather improperly. It could not take evidence on this point, because it is not within its terms of reference.

Mr. Erroll: Nevertheless, I think that the paragraph which I hope the House will permit me to quote is quite strong on the subject. Paragraph 14 (e) says:
The extent to which overseas owners of technical information might be deterred from allowing its use to British manufacturers if the Government's powers under the Defence Regulations, however much modified, were made permanent.
The Committee regarded that as a serious risk which should be taken into account. In all the circumstances, therefore, we decided that the use of "know-how" should be restricted to purely defence purposes.

Mr. Mellish: Does the Minister realise that the speech he is now making makes absolute nonsense of what the noble Lord,


Lord Mancroft, said when presenting the 1953 Bill, because he argued quite differently then?

Mr. Erroll: He was speaking about a different Bill, which does make a difference I should have thought.
I should like now to turn to several points of detail, some of which were raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Newport. The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to Clause 2 (2), and he wanted to know what it meant. I think I can satisfy him about that. What those rather complicated four or five lines really do is to try to cover the difficult situation that, if we were to have an absolutely complete prohibition of disclosure of terms of agreements, Government Departments would not be able to make any progress at all because, until they knew something of the nature of the agreements, they could not see what is really holding matters up. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would look at those five lines again, in the light of the explanation I have tried to give, he will, I think, see the purpose of them.
The right hon. and learned Member for Newport and the hon. Member for Birmingham. All Saints (Mr. D. Howell) referred to use and asked why disclosure should not be included also, at least to Government Departments, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested. There is really no point in disclosing un-published manufacturing information to Government Departments, because they would not, in fact, be using it. It is of value only to somebody who is manufacturing and, since the Government Departments concerned would not be engaged in manufacturing the products to which the use of the manufacturing information is related, there would really be no purpose in disclosing it to them.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), in what I thought was an excellent and helpful speech, referred to authorisation. This is, of course, a point which very much exercised the Howitt Committee and which, naturally, we ourselves have considered very carefully. He would argue in regard to this question of how far one should delegate, for an assurance that only the Minister should personally sign. In a rather light-hearted moment, the

hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) referred to the exclusion of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade from the list of competent persons in the definition Clause of the Bill. Perhaps I might deal with that point straight away. My right hon. Friend is not included in that list because the Board of Trade is not a Defence Department and would not, of course, be concerned directly with "know-how" agreements relating to defence contracts. That is the only reason why he is not included. I am sure that we all enjoyed the hon. Gentleman's lighthearted intervention on that point.
For Parliament to lay down rules as to the extent of delegation in respect of any particular executive action, however important the matter may be, would surely detract from the full responsibility of the Minister. We felt that it would be far better, therefore, not to lay down particular rules although, as those hon. Members who listened to my right hon. Friend's opening speech will know, my right hon. Friend did indicate to the House that his own right hon. Friends concerned would like him to give an assurance that, in normal times, decisions as to the giving of an authorisation will be made by the Minister personally. We attach great importance to that as a means of reassuring industry and making sure that the powers which we hope the House will grant will not be used too widely.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet wondered whether Clause 2 (3) was merely a device to protect civil servants. It is not. It is, in fact, a device to protect a licensee who, because of his desire to help the country, gets on with the job before negotiations are finally concluded and who might be held liable by the licensor for being in breach of the agreement which was to be altered by the competent authority.
Turning now to another of the remarks of the hon. Member for Paddington, North, he referred to Terylene socks and fibre-glass poles. As far as I can judge, after having only a short time to examine that particular case, I would say that the question of "know-how" in the manufacture of fibre-glass poles would be relevant only if the poles were specially designed or adapted for use in civil defence. If they were ordinary poles, there would be no question of using the agreements.

Mr. Parkin: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for trying, at short notice, to answer the point, but can he see the difference between a stretcher which is used in civil defence and a stretcher which is used in an ambulance going to any accident in the City of London?

Mr. Erroll: I should like to see the stretchers first and then try to point out the difference.
The hon. Member for Loughborough referred to our attitude towards the small man. Our attitude to the small man is that he has the same rights and opportunities as the large firm. The interests of the small firm are taken care of by a number of trade associations, of course, some of which made representations to the Howitt Committee. The hon. Gentleman referred also to the period of three months. There must be some period, and, if he would read the subsection, he will I think, that it is a minimum of three months. The subsection provides:
At the expiration of such period, not being less than three months beginning with the date of the service of the notice, as may be specified therein, no agreement…".
In other words, the licensor and licensee have three months in which to try to reach a fresh agreement which will be satisfactory to the competent authority. If, at the end of three months, they have made no progress, the competent authority may step in, subject only to the reservation that if they decide earlier on no agreement they can say so in writing, which will enable the competent authority to get started straight away.
The hon. Member for Loughborough referred also to compensation. The criteria for the assessment of compensation are very clearly set out in the Bill in the latter part of Clause 4 (1). If we were to try to go into the detailed point which he made now, we should be transgressing the time of the Committee, a Committee which I hope will not be so arduous as he himself suggested that it would be.

Sir F. Soskice: I really do not want to harass the hon. Gentleman, but may I go back to Clause 1 and a question I asked him previously? As I understand it, he has conceded that the wording which the Government have now chosen

has reintroduced the ambiguity and doubt about which Lord Mancroft was apprehensive. Having reintroduced the doubt, can the Minister now tell me whether it is the Government's desire that the Health Services should be included in the phrase "for the services of the Crown" or should be excluded? He has made it doubtful. Which does he want? Does he want the Services included or excluded?

Mr. Mellish: Trouble again.

Mr. Erroll: Not this time; I think that I have it right this time. The position as regards patents is quite clear. "Know-how" is limited to defence contracts. It is perfectly possible for the position to be clarified, when necessary, by reference to the courts. In any event, the Ministry of Health does not experience difficulty in placing its contracts for the supply of items for the Health Service and is quite satisfied with the present arrangements.

Sir F. Soskice: I must press the hon. Gentleman about this. The position about patents is not clear. The Minister himself earlier admitted that it was not clear and was doubtful. He said so earlier in his speech, when I pointed that out and asked why he had reintroduced the doubt. The only answer he could give was that he was in trouble. Does he not want the health services to be included in the Clause dealing with patents, or does he want them to be excluded? Can the Minister now be so good as to indicate that he will accept an Amendment in the Committee stage making clear what the Government want, if they know what they want?

Mr. Erroll: I understand that it is not necessary, but I think that the right thing to do would be to table an Amendment at the appropriate stage in Committee, when we can discuss it in rather more detail.

Mr. Willey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Erroll: No; I have given way a great deal already. If I have omitted the communications point raised by the hon. Member, I think the question is whether they are "designed or adapted" for use for the Services. That is the operative phrase.

Mr. D. Howell: On a point of order. We are discussing the question of the provision and supply of commodities for the Health Service. The Minister has invited us to put down Amendments on this specific point in Committee. Can you advise the House, Mr. Speaker, whether under the Long Title of the Bill Amendments such as the Minister now invites us to put down would not be out of order?

Mr. Speaker: I could not give a decision about Amendments, which I have not seen, in Committee, over which I have no control. That will be a matter for the Chairman of the Committee. He could not come to a judgment upon them until he saw the Amendments.

Mr. Erroll: I have tried to reply to the many interesting points which have been raised by hon. Members this afternoon. I hope that we shall be able to have a Second Reading of this modest but, I believe, useful and valuable Bill.

7.23 p.m.

Mr. Niall MacDermot: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), I had intended to begin with an apology to the President of the Board of Trade that I was unable to be present to hear his opening speech on the Bill. Like my hon. Friend, however, I have been given to understand by my hon. and learned Friends that there is, perhaps, little ground for apology as the right hon. Gentleman's speech was exceedingly unilluminating on the subject matter of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Secretary, who has just replied to the debate, regarded that as a flippant allusion. I can only say in commenting on his speech that in the short time I have been in this House I never recall hearing a winding-up speech from the Government which so utterly failed to deal with any of the serious points raised in debate and which showed such a complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the subject matter of the Bill and of the points raised in the debate.
Some of us are a little mystified why the Bill has been introduced at this time. Perhaps, when one looks at the history of the Bill and its 1953 predecessor, the explanation is that the Government are bringing it forward now to bolster up

their case on the need for the reform of the constitution of the other Chamber. The position is that there was introduced a very commendable Bill—not perfect in every detail, but commendable in its general principles—four years ago in the other place.

Mr. S. Silverman: Will my hon. Friend expand the point very slightly and tell us how the addition of life Peers to another place would have affected the matter one way or another?

Mr. Speaker: That would be out of order. I advise the hon. Member not to accept that invitation.

Mr. MacDermot: I accept your advice, Mr. Speaker.
A much more comprehensive Bill was introduced four years ago with the purpose of substituting on a permanent basis power for the Government to replace powers which were necessary for them during the war and which have been found necessary to be continued and perpetuated after the war and for the future. That Bill was heavily attacked by the backwoodsmen in another place. The result was that the Government withdrew the Bill and appointed a Committee to study much more limited proposals. The present Bill is based upon the recommendations of that Committee. Let us get it clear that what the Bill is primarily concerned with is the protection of the public purse. The Bill is to enable the Government, when making contracts with firms for the production of goods required by the Government, to obtain them at a favourable price.
The way in which that is done is by giving powers to the Government to authorise the contracting party to use patented or licensed rights which they have in breach of their existing contracts; and if the Government do that, they then, in the absence of agreement, have to refer to a tribunal the amount which is to be paid for the use of those rights. That, of course, gives the Government power to compel the party with whom they are negotiating to act reasonably and to offer these services at a reasonable price.
The first matter which disturbs many of my hon. Friends on this side of the House is to understand why the powers originally taken under the 1953 Bill for


the whole realm of Government service are now being limited in scope to powers for use for the production of defence materials. The Parliamentary Secretary, when seeking to reply to this argument a moment ago, made two points. He first referred to the recommendations of the Howitt Report. As was indicated in interjections by some of my hon. Friends, that cannot be an argument in support of this action, because the Howitt Committee was limited by its terms of reference to studying the question in relation to defence contracts. It is true that the Committee went outside its terms of reference and made recommendations for limiting these powers in other spheres than defence contracts.
The one argument which the Minister has put forward in his support—it is, perhaps, our major objection to the Bill—is to say that it would be detrimental to our interests to extend it beyond the realm of defence contracts, because, for example, an American manufacturer might be reluctant to enter into an agreement with a British manufacturer giving him rights concerning technical "know-how", and so on, if he thought that the result would be that the British Government would later use their powers to compel the use of that information for other than defence purposes.
If that is a valid argument, it is a valid argument in respect of defence contracts.

Mr. Erroll: We have accepted that.

Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Gentleman says that the Government have accepted it for defence, but why accept it for defence and not for health drugs? What is the difference in principle? Are armaments manufacturers more public-spirited in this respect in America than the manufacturers of antibiotics which have been developed in America? Surely, we are believed to be dealing here with hard-headed business men.
I do not believe that this is a valid objection at all. I do not believe that this is really the ground for the Government limiting the legislation to defence contracts. I think that the reason they have limited it, is the reason for the objections raised in the debate on the 1953 Bill in another place; namely, it was said that the whole of this principle of compelling the use of the secret

"know-how" and technical information is an infringement of the whole principle of the sanctity of contract.
Therefore, it is said, that principle ought to be limited and confined only to the absolute minimum necessary. The Government consider that the absolute minimum necessary is the use of it for weapons of war and destruction, and that any other kind of public purpose, any other kind of Government use or Government service, is something which is unnecessary, which they can dispense with but for which, if necessary, the Government can pay the higher price, the market price.
Let us make no mistake that the higher price, the market price, is the price for which the inventor or the manufacturer with the technical "know-how" is holding out. It may be a quite extravagant and excessive price. If there is one sentence in the Howitt Report with which we can all agree, it is the sentence at the end of paragraph 16:
Additionally, the national interest must be protected against the unscrupulous and avaricious.
If the national interest is to be protected against the unscrupulous and avaricious in respect of the manufacture of guns, bombs, rocket weapons and so forth, why is it not to be protected in respect of the manufacture of antibiotics, of hearing aids, and of appliances for limbless pensioners? These are the matters which are being excluded by the confining of this Bill, unlike the earlier Bill, only to defence purposes.
We have had no satisfactory explanation or argument on this at all and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne pointed out, the difference here in the approach to this question is an admirable example of the difference in approach of our attitude to questions of the national interest by hon. Members on the other side and on this side of the House.
The second major matter which disturbs me and many of us on this side of the House in respect of the cutting down of the provisions of the 1953 Bill relates not to Clause 2 but to Clause 1, and particularly to this matter which was contained in the 1953 Bill of the use of these powers in relation to the production of drugs, medicines or appliances.
Here again, the Minister in dealing with this matter a few minutes ago, showed an astonishing incomprehension of the subject matter of the 1953 Bill. He said in answer to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), a moment ago, that the position in relation to patents is quite clear. The position in relation to patents is precisely the position that is unclear. The provision in the 1953 Bill proposed that
the powers exercisable in relation to a patented invention under section forty-six of the Patents Act, 1949…shall include power to make, use, exercise and vend the invention—(b) for the production of drugs, medicines or appliances required—(i) by the Minister of Health for supply to patients under Part II of the National Health Service Act…
Therefore, the provision which is now being excluded related solely to an Amendment of the Patents Act and it had nothing to do with "know-how" or technical information. This was concerned with patents themselves.
Lord Mancroft, in presenting that Bill in another place, explained that the reason that that was being put in was that there was doubt concerning the provision which had existed in the Patents Act legislation ever since 1907, when that legislation first began, namely, that the Crown had the right to use patented inventions for the purpose of the service of the Crown. There was doubt whether that phrase would include the manufacture of goods required by the Minister of Health for the National Health Service.
Our belief and our fear is that the reason that was omitted was not because anything has happened to clear up that doubt—and we have not been told that anything has happened to clear up that doubt—but because the Government have yielded to pressure from industry to limit and confine these rights and powers to the narrowest possible limits. It is for that reason that this Bill—the whole Title of it has been changed, because the earlier Bill was the Inventions and Designs (Crown Use) Bill—is now limited to purely defence contracts.
Now, because the activities of the Minister of Health under the National Health Act could not be said to have anything to do with defence contracts, we find the whole matter dropped and left out. We are still left with the question: do the Government believe, or not believe, that the powers that exist

under the Patents Act to use inventions for the services of the Crown will cover these powers to use them for the purpose of the National Health Acts?
The next point which the Minister sought to deal with in his reply, deals with the question of disclosure. He was dealing with the question: why not permit disclosure at least to Government Departments? His answer, again in my submission, showed a complete misunderstanding of the position. His answer, as I noted it, was that there was no point in doing that as the information would be of value only to the manufacturer, and a Government Department is not a manufacturer.
If that were the truth, how did the provision for disclosure ever come to exist in the 1953 Bill, which it did? The 1953 Bill provided expressly and positively that which this Bill deliberately and expressly excludes. Again, Lord Mancroft in his speech explained the reason why this provision was included in the 1953 Bill. He said:
It is, however, possible that the Department may not have the technical information necessary to use the invention, and the persons in possession of the information may not be willing to divulge it. The only power which can overcome this difficulty—and it is recognised by the Government to be an extreme power to be used sparingly—is one to require a person in possession of the information to divulge it…At the specific request of my right hon. Friends the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Minister of Supply, this power is now made permanent but in a very modified form."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 1st December, 1953; Vol. 184, c. 773.]
In other words, four years ago the then Minister of Supply and the then First Lord of the Admiralty were making a specific request for power to command this information and disclosure of this information to them.
Now we are told that the power is quite unnecessary and that they never required it at all. May we be told why they made that specific request, referred to by Lord Mancroft four years ago, and what had they in mind? What has happened since to make them change their minds? If it was necessary for them then to have the information in order to use the inventions, why is it not necessary now?
Again, we see on looking at the Howitt Report that this was one of the recommendations which they made outside the


terms of their reference. It appears in page 12 of the Report.
It is quite evident to us on this side of the House that the change in form of the Bill, compared with the earlier Bill, is the direct result of the pressure which has been brought to bear on the Government by representatives of industry, who want to ensure that, at whatever cost to the public purse, their own bargaining power in relation to the Government shall remain unchanged, and who are determined that they will submit to restriction or limitation of these powers solely on the question of the manufacture of armaments. We believe this to be entirely unsatisfactory and we consider that, as the Government have already withdrawn and reconsidered the Bill once, they should do so again and bring it again before the House with a competent explanation of its provisions.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), I have not been present throughout the debate, and I must apologise to the House. My absence has not been because of any dereliction of duty. It so happens that one has unavoidable public duties and cannot always attend a debate which one is anxious to attend. But having heard part of the debate, I am gravely disturbed. I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade for the pleasant and charming way in which he replied, but I speak only of the manner of his speech. The content was very disappointing. He made no effort to answer the points that had been raised.
I begin with a generalisation, and this is really what disturbs me most about the Government. In the examination of any problem, they are bound to begin by taking a view which accords with the public interest. They do that as reasonable people, with experience in and out of office over the past decade. Having done that, they immediately begin to retreat. I should like to give an illustration or two, of which I have had unfortunate experience.
We know that, following the precedent set by the Labour Government, the Conservative Government were prepared to improve conditions affecting clean food. They promoted a Bill in another place,

just as the 1953 Bill was promoted in another place. During its passage, the Bill was not withdrawn but emasculated. We on this side of the House had to protest vigorously and try to improve the Bill, but we found that, having set off with good intentions, subject to pressures which are very influential in the Conservative Party, the Government had to change their views.
There is another example, and again I am unfortunately a victim of this change of attitude. Not so long ago the Government declared their policy on the moderate concentration of slaughterhouses. Viscount Tenby declared himself in favour of it on behalf of the Government. Now, we on this side of the House are resisting the Government because they are going back on the declaration which they made. Again it is because they have been sorely tried by the pressures of vested interests.
We are in the same difficulty over this Bill as we were in the two examples which I have given. The Government can say to some degree, "We are acting in the public interest," but we must not he precluded from saying at the same time, "You are not acting sufficiently in the public interest, or as far in the public interest as you yourselves originally determined. We are shocked, when it is an issue of public and private interests, that you invariably give way to private interests after having declared your good intentions."
One very unfortunate conclusion that must be drawn is that we have a weak-kneed Government and that, while we are faced with difficult conditions, the sooner they get out the better. In all these instances, and I could have given a score, the Government have declared their policy and then gone back on it. That is a very bad thing for any Government to do, but this is what they have done.
The reason for it can be found in the Howitt Committee's Report, which says in paragraph 4:
The Bill met with strong opposition and was withdrawn.
The Bill met with opposition stronger than the Government. In other words, influential private interests were stronger than the interests serving the public interest within the Government; and a Government who do not know their own


mind having been exposed. How can the Government give a lead to the country in the difficulties that we are facing? This is a serious matter.
Another matter of which I have been complaining on other occasions is that when the Government are forced by pressures within their own party to change their mind they seek refuge in a committee report. I do not believe in Government by committee. I believe in a Government of Ministers who will stand at the Dispatch Box and defend their policy and not say, "A committee inquiring into this has come to a conclusion different from our own." If the Government change their policy they should say so and themselves give the reasons.
This case is worse than that because, as has been pointed out, the Howitt Committee have no alternative but to recommend as it recommended because of its terms of reference. The change of policy was in the terms of reference given to the Committee. To do that sort of thing is to fail to accept the responsibility of office. If the Government were withdrawing the 1953 Bill and adopting a changed policy they should have come to this House and not to another place and said, "We have been knocked about by the big fellows in the City and we are changing our minds." It was not necessary to have the Howitt Committee. That Committee could not advise the Government on this very point of reconsideration, because the Government had already decided to give way and had limited the committee's terms of reference.
The Government can claim the moderate virtue that they could have done worse than they are doing. There is no great virtue in that in this age. The Tories could have frightened us if they had wished by telling us how they behaved in the 1930s, but all that is not relevant to the conditions in which we are living today. The Government could say that they have not ignored the public interest as much as they ignored the distressed areas, for example. But surely today we should start with the assumption that both political parties put the public interest first. But if we say that, we must say that the disappointing thing about the

Bill, and the thing which grievously disturbs me, is that we have had an open, patent recognisable, abandonment of the public interest.
This is germane to the situation which faces us at this moment. When I hear my hon. Friends talking about the limited definition which must be given to "defence materials," I think about the worry and concern that are shaking the American people. They are concerned over Sputnik I and Sputnik II. Is either a "defence material" or is it a civilian project? The very argument that is being threshed out in the United States is the very point with which we are concerned here.
We know that Marshal Zhukov was not the only Defence Minister to get the sack. We know that the Secretary for Defence in the United States got the sack because he divided and separated civilian development from development for defence purposes. He said that he would not pay eggheads for telling him why the grass was green. For making that remark he has been sacked. We cannot divorce any longer civilian development from defence development, but this is just what the Government are trying to do at this very moment.
This is not a doctrinaire matter. I have gone to the United States and not to the Soviet Union for my illustration. I have shown that, at this moment when our Government are trying to restrict their powers and to limit the public interest, the classic home of private enterprise is showing, on the contrary, that the public interest must override private interest, not only in the straightforward defence sector but in the civilian sector also.
For that reason, I was also concerned when my attention was drawn to what Lord Mancroft said in another place during the Second Reading debate on the Inventions and Designs (Crown Use) Bill. I will remind the House again of what he said:
Secondly, to the permanent power to make, use and exercise inventions, there is added by Section 49 the power to 'vend' or, in plain English, sell them. Under these powers, during the war, vitamins were imported and manufactured to fortify foodstuffs for supply to the public. And, if by mentioning this fact I am not seriously endangering the prospects of the Bill, let me remind your Lordships that under these powers, similarly, dehydrated potatoes were manufactured and supplied to the long-suffering public. There were a variety


of ways in which these powers were exercised. Concrete sleepers have been supplied for railways, coal cutters for collieries, and even refrigerators for council houses."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 1st December, 1953; Vol. 184, c. 769.]
I do not wish on this occasion to say anything about the vitamins or the potatoes, but I do want to say something about the other matters mentioned by Lord Mancroft, because it is particularly relevant at the present time. Why did Lord Mancroft mention concrete sleepers? Because civilian work was done in the Royal Ordnance factories. Because there was some suspicion about the development of concrete sleepers. After all, this was investigated among other things, by the Select Committee on Estimates. Why did his Lordship mention coal cutters for collieries? Because these were not solely manufactured by private interests. Work was carried out by private interests in conjunction with the Royal Ordnance factories. Again, let us take refrigerators. Why did his Lordship mention refrigerators? It was not because of a mere whim or fancy, but because refrigerators were built not only by private enterprise but also in the Royal Ordnance factories. In other words, these matters were mentioned by Lord Mancroft as practical examples of what happens if civilian work is done in Royal Ordnance factories.
What has the Minister of Supply said? He recently said that he will consider the taking on again of civilian work by the Royal Ordnance factories. Together with some of my colleagues, I met the right hon. Gentleman to discuss our own Royal Ordnance factory at Birtley. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to assure us that he would certainly consider the possibility of taking civilian work into the Royal Ordnance factories, if it proved necessary. Why, if that is so, do we have at this very moment a renunciation of the powers which the Government sought in the 1953 Bill? Has the Minister of Supply been consulted about this? If he has, did he express any dissatisfaction or disappointment? Did he say, "This will prejudice me and make unreal the assurances I am giving that civilian work will be undertaken in Royal Ordnance factories? That is a very essential point.
In parenthesis, may I say that I think there should be an inquiry into the development work done on defence material in Royal Ordnance factories and used outside by private interests. But this is

something rather different. I am now on the straight-forward point that if the Ordnance factories are to revert to this work, why is the Government at this moment trying to abandon the powers they were seeking in 1953?
I say this, hoping that a third Minister who will wind up the debate—I thought that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade was in error in describing his speech as the winding-up speech—will give us an explicit assurance. I hope we shall get an undertaking that this will be put back, to show that the Government are in earnest in talking about the reintroduction of civilian work into the Royal Ordnance factories, if that be necessary.
There were other points about which the Minister's reply was most unsatisfactory. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) mentioned West Germany, and I thought that he made a legitimate point when he asked what assurances we were to have that the information they receive will not be used by the West Germans for civilian purposes. Again, this is very important today. In certain respects we are being out-competed by West Germany. Oddly enough, that is not by reason of any technological or scientific advantage. The Germans are very disturbed because they cannot compete with us in that respect owing to the ravages suffered by their scientific and technical manpower. They are competing with us by paying lower wages. That is the reason for the competitive advantage enjoyed by West Germany.
In a situation where we are being out-competed because of the lower standard of living in West Germany, the Minister cannot give us any assurance. I am not surprised that my hon. Friend should express concern, representing as he does a constituency which is vitally affected by such questions. People in my own constituency did not want to be out-competed by a country which has a lower standard of living and which is receiving much technical "know-how" from us. I expected the Minister to treat that point seriously and give us an assurance that we should get an absolute guarantee that there would be no use of such information for civilian purposes. When we came to the question of reciprocity, what did the Minister say?

Mr. Parkin: The Minister said nothing.

Mr. Wiley: He did say something. He said, "We are discussing it at N.A.T.O." Why not wait until the end of those discussions before taking this present action? We had a disappointing time at the end of Questions when we tried to probe the Minister of Defence about N.A.T.O. I could not understand whether the right hon. Gentleman discusses the matter, whether he does the negotiating, or whether officials do it all on our behalf. But it is very disturbing when we can get no greater assurance than that the issue of reciprocity is being discussed in N.A.T.O., and we have nothing more, no further guarantee given to the House, when hon. Members are disturbed over this matter.
The Minister would not give way to me when I wished to ask a question about the intentions of the Government during the Committee stage. As he would not give way, I will ask my question now, if I can secure the Minister's attention. When the Minister assured us that this matter could be raised in the Committee by way of Amendment—I refer to the question of the National Health Service—I gather that he said no more than that the Opposition could put down an Amendment. I wish him to give an assurance that the Government will put down an Amendment. If the right hon. Gentleman is merely telling us that we can put down an Amendment he is giving us no assurance at all. I gathered from his remarks that we had no protection at all, at any rate with regard to appliances used in the home, and it is these appliances in which we are particularly interested.
There has been talk and discussion about deaf aids. We all know the difficulties about these appliances. It is on this very point regarding the deaf, the maimed and the crippled, that the Minister will give us no assurance at all. Having heard the criticisms made by my hon. Friends, I believe that we have received no satisfaction at all from the Government and I hope that at any rate we shall receive a proper reply from the Government Front Bench before we allow this Bill to go to a Committee.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Mulley: I reinforce the plea that my hon. Friends have made for a further reply. I am sure the House will give leave for it from either the President of the Board of Trade or the Parliamentary Secretary. I apologise to the President of the Board of Trade that I was not, through service on a committee, able to be present to hear his speech at the beginning of the debate. I heard the Parliamentary Secretary, who was unable to deal with the very substantial points that had been put by my hon. Friends.
I make no apology for carrying on the debate. I am not doing so in order to delay debate on the Measure which is to be discussed after this one has been dealt with, but because I wish to discuss the merits of the Bill. The Bill to follow is undoubtedly important, but the one before the House now is of enormous magnitude. The Howitt Committee's Report, to which reference has been made, speaks about millions of public money being at stake. One has only to glance at the Bill to see, as the Parliamentary Secretary admitted in a reply, that the whole question of our relations with N.A.T.O. and so on are involved in it. Surely the Government do not expect the House to let a Bill of this character through more or less on the nod because they want to put other business through today.
Why not wait until we know more, as we hope we eventually shall, of the negotiations at N.A.T.O. that are shortly to take place. We ought to know from the Government why the Emergency Regulations under the 1949 Act have already expired. They expired on Tuesday of this week. What is the position in this matter? We are entitled to be told much more, not only about the Bill but how it is that a very different Bill has to be considered from the one which was withdrawn in the House of Lords.
We notice that the Second Reading debate in the House of Lords was merely adjourned. I spent a little time looking into the further proceedings, but I could find no explanation why the adjourned Second Reading debate was not continued. I do not want to weary the House with a long quotation from those proceedings. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) quoted


Lord Mancroft who moved the Second Reading on that occasion. My hon. Friend could see no reason why the Government agreed to the withdrawal of the Bill. Unfortunately my hon. Friend did not read sufficiently far down the paragraph from which he quoted. I found these significant words:
On Thursday, in the calm and cool after the Division had been taken on the subject of television, your Lordships heard my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor ask the House to agree to certain extensions of these Orders in Council."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 1st December, 1953; Vol. 184, c. 769.]
The timing of the Second Reading debate on the Inventions and Designs (Crown Use) Bill in the House of Lords in the same week that there was a certain amount of bother about commercial television might be the underlying reason why the Bill was so easily withdrawn. My present design and purpose is to persuade the Government that there is as strong an opposition to the present Bill as there was in the House of Lords on that occasion when the Government changed their mind so quickly.
It is most extraordinary. There was a relatively short debate which was adjourned, as far as one can understand from the record, because a further debate was to follow. The Government set up the Howitt Committee. It was given terms of reference which had already decided the main question at issue. It had to consider only whether the Crown should have permanent powers "to authorise the use of defence contracts". The Government have already taken that decision. Since the President of the Board of Trade is in charge of the Bill, may I remind him of what he said about Committees in his enthusiasm at becoming a Minister shortly after 1951. He was speaking in reply to a short debate on the brick industry on 14th March, 1952, and he said:
We do not need a committee to look into this question. That is rather the kind of method which our predecessors used—I will not say to shift responsibility, but to deal with these things. My opinion is that the Ministers responsible for these industries should do the thing themselves, and if they do not do it properly they will have to be got rid of. That is the proper way to run the country, and not by committees."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 1892.]
I have had cause to reflect that before we get rid of a Bill which, in the right hon. Gentleman's own words, is the

product of one of the Committees which he so much despises, it might be better to go back to the original Bill which was no doubt produced by the Minister on that occasion. The right hon. Gentleman might also reflect during the remaining hours of this debate on some of the other Committees which he has been concerned with and which he has set up since 1952.
Now I would refer to the Parliamentary Secretary's reply. We were delighted with the charm and the light-hearted manner with which he dealt with the matter, and were extremely impressed with his light-hearted reference to the Minister of Health. He tried to deal with the very substantial point which my hon. Friends had made, saying he thought the Minister of Health was quite satisfied that everything was all right. In view of what has happened in this House and in the National Health Service over the last few weeks, can the Parliamentary Secretary really accept the bland assurance of the Minister of Health that things are satisfactory? The Minister of Health told us at that Box that there was no dissatisfaction or trouble in the National Health Service, despite the fact that we were getting letter after letter from our constituents who are employed in the Service. The Minister seemed to attach no importance to that at all.
I appreciate that this is not quite a point of order that can be dealt with by yourself, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, or Mr. Speaker, but the Minister admitted earlier that it is a point of very great substance. A Government spokesman assured us that when the Bill goes to Committee we shall be able to move Amendments to make sure that Clause 1 applies to the Health Service. The Parliamentary Secretary thinks that it can be done, but he is not sure. He suggested putting down Amendments to clarify the position.
That is not quite enough. The Government come here with all the best legal advice, and with the assistance of Parliamentary draftsmen, and they ought to know whether an important service like the Health Service is covered by the Bill. Several of my hon. Friends are anxious, and I share their anxiety, to know whether or not we shall be ruled out of order on Amendments that might go further than the very restrictive nature of the Long Title. Before we go any further


we ought to have some ruling on this point.
I want to refer to the effect of the Bill on the civil and military aircraft industry, in which I know the Parliamentary Secretary has some considerable personal interest because of his experience at the Ministry of Supply. The industry is in great difficulty. The Minister of Supply told us recently that in the present year there was to be a reduction of 9 per cent. in the orders for military aircraft. We are all clear on the point that the Bill would deal with the cases which arise from Government military contracts.
It is the opinion of people in the aircraft industry that the civil side of the industry has been able to carry on and develop only as a result of the military contracts. There have been suggestions from leading people in the industry that there will have to be—[Interruption.] This is a serious point on which we might have the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] This is a matter which affects the lives of the people of this country and millions of pounds of public money. I warn the Government that if they make a habit of treating the House with discourtesy we shall see that they have long hours in which to reflect on how they should approach a matter of this magnitude. It may well be that they will regret sitting there tonight, trying to jump the gun by an early reply, and trying to avoid the point at issue.
I had intended to make a very brief speech, but the temptation to go on at length is great, although I do not wish to do so because I know that many of my hon. Friends are interested in the Bill which is to follow. It is asking a lot of back benchers that they should spend many hours here because they, unlike a Minister, cannot walk in and make a speech whenever they please. I have sat in this House for days and not been called. I submit to the Leader of the House, who I know has the well-being of back benchers at heart, that he might reflect on these matters and sometimes bring them to the attention of his colleagues. If we spend a long time in this House, as we are doing tonight when we might be elsewhere, it is because we recognise that

in this Bill there are vital matters of principle at stake.
I hope we shall not go away tonight without some reply to some of the points which have been raised. I particularly call attention to a sentence in the Howitt Report, on which the Government rely so much. The Report says:
It is clear, however, that in view of the magnitude of the Ministry's contracts the savings would be likely to run into some millions of pounds per annum.
The best the Committee could find as a case against the Inventions and Designs (Crown Use) Bill, which was withdrawn in another place, was that industry said it was wrong in principle for the Government to take any action which resulted in the overriding of, or interference with, commercial agreements freely negotiated. We have a clear issue there. Have the Government a responsibility to save millions of pounds of taxpayers' money? We have often to suffer speeches from the benches opposite about how money should be saved and taxation reduced, yet tonight there is practically no one on the benches opposite when millions of taxpayers' money are at stake.
The Government are prepared to override that clear public interest by reference to the case for industry that it is wrong for the Government to interfere with commercial contracts. That raises a very great point of principle. I will not go into it now as there may be other occasions on which one may go into detail on these matters, but clearly there is a case of principle. If public money is provided for research, as it has been provided in the aircraft industry, should people be able to gain an advantage by keeping that information, keeping patents and research paid for by public money, and turning them to their commercial advantage? That is the clear case we have at issue. It is not at all clear to me that the important "know-how", working drawings, and designs which are of major importance in the aircraft industry will be covered by the Bill.
Often, the distinction between the military and the civil side of the aircraft industry is difficult to draw. We know there is great difficulty in defining what are defence contracts. A great deal of the Howitt Report is devoted to that problem. I suggest to my hon. Friends that today not only have we had a most


serious indication of the attitude of the Government to the public interest and large sums of public money, which we shall remember when hon. Members opposite are on this theme of saving taxation, but we have seen a complete and utter surrender to a few speakers in another place—another place which represents nobody and which by Act of Parliament has no right to concern itself with taxation matters. A few speeches in that place are sufficient to make the Government run away, to set up a Committee without proper terms of reference and to bring in this Bill, which they expected to get through on Second Reading in a few minutes, or at worst in a few hours.
The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum is significant. When a Bill like this is based on a Committee's Report, it is customary to direct the attention of hon. Members to the Report, but there is no reference in the Bill to the Howitt Report, although it is a Command Paper. I think the Government were trying to get this thing through the House without hon. Members knowing what was at stake at a time when they were unaware of its history. Both in their manner of dealing with the debate and their attempt to get the Bill through without properly explaining and defining it, the Government have been less than courteous to the House.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Orbach: I regret that I have to continue this debate, in view of the very late hour and the fact that some of my hon. Friends also want to speak in this very important discussion. I have listened to most of the speeches which have been made and I intervene only because I think the Leader of the House ought to know something of the character of the debate we have had from this side of the House.
The debate was opened by a speech from the President of the Board of Trade, a speech which lasted twelve minutes. Those of us who were in the House at the time noted that of that twelve minutes, about eight were taken up by points of order. Only four minutes were devoted to telling this House the details, or making some sort of explanation, of an important Bill containing a number of Clauses which, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport

(Sir F. Soskice) pointed out, are written in most abstruse language. That language was difficult to understand for such a highly qualified member of the bar as he is, and most difficult for a mere layman like myself to appreciate. That was particularly so when, sentence by sentence, the speech was interspersed with language which is uncommon to this Chamber and, in fact, uncommon in British industry. I doubt whether one could pick up any dictionary in common use in our primary schools, technical colleges, secondary schools, grammar schools or public schools and define what the words "know-how" really mean. The last man in the world to be able to define it to this House was the President of the Board of Trade.
I regret that I have to make this personal attack on the right hon. Gentleman because I have the highest regard for him. I always thought him a very debonair gentleman, but the last thing one should do is to treat the House in such a debonair manner on this important issue. Hon. Members on this side of the House have demonstrated how important this Bill is. My hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) went to great length to give us some of the history of the Measure we are about to enact—I hope, however, it will be withdrawn unless it is amended—from the stage when emergency measures were introduced to assist the nation at a time of great peril. It was obvious to all hon. Members listening to him that we were dealing with very grave constitutional issues and with matters affecting our industry and the life blood of the British economy.
Questions were directed to the Minister which might have been answered very simply, in which event he would have cut short the debate by two or three hours. The fact that they were not answered is an affront to the House. I do not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman does not know the answers. The probability is that, like many other hon. Members, he is very much overworked and, with the wide field which he covers, it is perhaps a little too difficult for him to grasp every detail. Nevertheless, this is an important Bill and it is not a matter which the right hon. Gentleman can deal with in four minutes, saying "You must accept or reject it. In any event,


we have the big battalions outside and we can call them in to put the Bill through".
The Bill raises the whole question of our foreign relations. I will not discuss them, but I want to tell the Leader of the House that he, too, is to blame here because one of the sponsors of the Bill is one of his Joint Under-Secretaries. Why was she not here to discuss the grave measures of civil defence and what arrangements are being made for the necessary technical processes to be available to the Government?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State was here for a considerable time and took an interest in the debate. I have been here for part of the time. There is no intention of treating the House with any discourtesy about the question of civil defence.

Mr. Orbach: I was absent from the Chamber for only about an hour while I saw a deputation, and during the time I was present no Joint Under-Secretary of State to the Home Department was present. Only four Members were on the Conservative benches. The President of the Board of Trade and his colleague were here, as was a Whip and the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies). The only speech we have heard from the other side of the House, with the exception of that from the Minister, was the speech of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet, who attacked the Bill.

Mr. Willey: And he is not here for the reply.

Mr. Orbach: He may well return for the reply. In any case, he was courteous enough to listen to some of the speeches made by my hon. Friends.
I want to deal with only one part of the Bill and that is the part which is missing from it and which was in the 1953 Bill. Although this has been touched on by other hon. Members, it has by no means been stressed sufficiently. It is the part relating to technical processes, inventions and designs being available to the Ministry of Health. This is no laughing matter and no matter which we can brush aside. It may not

be within the knowledge of the President of the Board of Trade, but the Minister of Health sends many circulars to hospital management committees and governors of teaching hospitals telling them about the rising costs of drugs, appliances and dressings and appealing to them, week after week and month after month, to conduct all kinds of investigations to see why the costs are rising.
They are rising for a very simple reason, which is that the technical processes are available only to individual firms. Although the need for curing the helpless and the sick exists, we do not take advantage of these technical processes on a national scale. The 1953 Bill would have made it possible for the technical processes owned, controlled and known by individual firms in the chemical industry and by firms dealing with the manufacture of surgical appliances, surgical equipment and dressings to be available to the Crown. This Bill cuts that provision out. Why? What is the reason?

Mr. Mellish: The Government will not answer that question.

Mr. Orbach: From £3 million to £5 million more a year are being spent on this item in the National Health Service, and every hospital management committee in the country has received circular after circular in the past two years appealing to them to cut down the amount of drugs they are using. Minister after Minister has risen to speak on the subject. Last year they made all kinds of feeble statements about the lack of poliomyelitis vaccine in this country. Why? Because only one firm was making this vaccine and because the Crown could not exercise its authority to take over the technical processes in order that dozens of other firms might make it or that we might make it ourselves so that every child in this country, not only certain children, could possibly have the menace of poliomyelitis removed.

Mr. Mellish: That is very well said.

Mr. Orbach: The same comment applies to cortisone and the antibiotics. The costs keep rising as the demand rises. If this Bill included, as the 1953 Bill included, the necessary authority, the Minister of Health would have full power


to ask that the technical processes of one firm, such as the Glaxo Laboratories, should be available to others. We in the hospitals could make these drugs ourselves and we could cut down the great expense in the Health Service and at the same time give a better service. If the Minister cannot withdraw himself—that is up to his bosses—he should withdraw the Bill.

8.27 p.m.

Sir D. Eccles: Perhaps I may reply, with the leave of the House.
The debate has been very interesting, but I hope hon. Members understand that the normal practice when moving the Second Reading of a Bill is to address oneself to the Bill and not to a Bill which is not before the House. That is what I did.
The hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Orbach) has raised an interesting point, to which I should like to reply, about the National Health Service. I am informed—and I will check this information because of the interest shown by the House—that at present there is no difficulty in getting hold of the "know-how" about drugs. I understand that the Minister of Health feels that the ordinary commercial arrangements which can be used are best. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am merely seeking to explain the other arguments. If we had the power which hon. Members opposite would like us to have, I do not think we should get other countries to make "know-how" agreements with manufacturers in the United Kingdom. They would say, "Under an Act of Parliament the information which

we have contracted to give to United Kingdom firms might be taken away from our licensee and handed to somebody else".

Mr. Mellish: These are not good reasons.

Sir D. Eccles: The hon. Member is entitled to say that these are not sufficiently good reasons, but we have looked at the matter carefully and we think that on balance it is better not to have these powers.

Mr. Mellish: Why was it thought right to have these powers in 1953? Will someone explain the difference between the position in 1953 and the position now? That is what we asked at 4 o'clock.

Sir D. Eccles: I will give the reason to the best of my knowledge. The wartime controls and all the experience of the war were still very much in the mind of people when they first considered the matter. Now we have moved further into peace-time conditions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Perhaps hon. Members will allow me to give the reason, which I think is the correct reason. It is now found not to be a good thing to have these compulsory powers because, in general, "know-how" is being exchanged very much more between countries. With that explanation, I think we can take a decision on the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — DEFENCE CONTRACTS [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the enactments authorising the use of patented inventions and registered designs for the services of the Crown in respect of articles required for defence and similar purposes by the Governments of allied or associated countries or the United Nations, and to make permanent provision with respect to the use for defence and similar purposes of other technical information protected by contractual arrangements, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) of any increase in the sums payable to patentees and other persons under the said enactments which is attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session—

(i) amending those enactments in respect of the uses of inventions and designs which (apart from any period of emergency in force thereunder) may be made by or with the authority of a Government department;
(ii) providing for payments to be made by Government departments in respect of the use or reproduction of models, documents and information in connection with the use of inventions and designs in pursuance of those enactments;

(b) of payments to be made by a competent authority (as defined by the said Act of the present Session) under provisions of that Act relating to the use of technical information (as so defined), being payments to persons entitled to the benefit of contractual and other restrictions or obligations affected by any authorisation given or treated as given by such an authority under those provisions.—[Sir D. Eccles.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — MAINTENANCE ORDERS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

8.31 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I move the Second Reading of the Bill with due regard to its contents and I hope also with due regard to brevity.

Mr. David Jones: Why?

Mr. Butler: I shall not be as brief as all that. It is quite a long Bill and I shall have to explain its points, if the House will permit me to do so. The Bill has appeared before under the aegis of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers). Therefore, some of its contents, Part II in particular, are familiar to the House. That, I think, is an explanation of why it will not be necessary to go into some of the points in Part II as closely as would otherwise be necessary.
I would like, first of all, to consider the general reasons why we want to introduce the Bill and to discuss it this evening. I think that all hon. Members must be aware of the human problems with which this Bill deals. I do not suppose that any hon. Member has not had a letter from a woman entitled to maintenance, who is in despair because she cannot get it and who feels that justice is in some way being withheld because a court who has said that she should have certain payments is unable to see that she receives them.
If we look at the social situation today, we see that one result of the greater ease with which divorces or separations can now, in my view unfortunately, be obtained is that the courts are making a considerable number of orders every year for the payment by a man of money for the maintenance of a wife from whom he is divorced or separated and for the maintenance of their children. Nobody will deny that it is a matter of general interest that there should be available convenient machinery for the enforcement of such orders, and that the courts should be able to see that their intention that the wife and children should be


maintained is, in fact, carried out. So, after the most careful consideration, the Government have come to the conclusion that the machinery to effect what I have just described is not sufficiently good. Certain most undesirable consequences flow—from the point of view not only of the individual woman but of society as a whole—from the inadequacy of the present machinery.
The purpose of this Bill, therefore, is to improve the machinery in two main respects. Part I, which consists of five Clauses, enables maintenance orders made in the High Court to be registered and enforced in a magistrates' court; and orders made in a magistrates' court to be registered and enforced in the High Court or county court. The result will be that it will be possible for a maintenance order, irrespective of the court in which it was made, to be enforced in the court, and by the procedure most suitable to the circumstances of each particular human case. That is the purpose of Part I, to the general details of which I shall revert shortly.
Part II, which stretches over a great deal of the rest of the print, introduces a new method of enforcement which has not hitherto been available in either a magistrates' or the High Court. The orders to which the Bill applies are those made in the interests of a wife or child—maintenance orders, affiliation orders, orders under the Guardianship of Infants Acts, and contribution orders in respect of dependants maintained at public expense. Part I does not apply to Scottish or Northern Ireland orders registered in England or Wales under the Maintenance Orders Act, 1950, but Part II does.
Before I come to consider the Bill, as is suitable in a Second Reading introduction perhaps I may make some general observations. I have given the attachment of earnings a great deal of thought in the light of the discussion of the Bill which, as I said, was so gallantly introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport; and of the representations made to me by those in favour of attachment and by those who are not—because there are both, and I shall refer to both this evening.
Let me outline briefly the principal indications which led me to the conclusion

that it would be right to introduce a system of attachment of earnings in England and Wales. Looking first at the public considerations, I was immediately struck by the fact that something approaching 5,000 men are sent to prison every year for failure to keep up payments under maintenance orders.
That seems to me to be not only a futile operation, but positively harmful. It gets no money for the woman, because the man ceases to earn while in prison. It loses the man his job, and the country his productive capacity. It exposes a defaulter to what I must say, with emphasis, is the contamination of prison—but not to any reformative influences. It occupies time and space in prison—and if anybody had the responsibility that I have for the prisons today they would feel that responsibility very heavily indeed. It takes up space which ought to be devoted to more constructive purposes. It also takes up a considerable amount of public money. I can tell the House that, on average, it costs the taxpayer about £5·15 a week to keep a man in prison at present.
I do not want to over-elaborate or exaggerate the case, because it is a balanced one. I do not suggest that 5,000 men are in prison at any one time. But there are 5,000 committals a year, for an average of about six weeks each, and it is precisely that six weeks which does the harm to the man in going into prison at all. I do not take the view that prison is at all a suitable punishment for a period of that duration.

Mr. D. Jones: The right hon. Gentleman referred to 5,000 committals. Is it not the case that some men are committed two or three times in one year, and that the actual number of people in prison is much less than 5,000?

Mr. Butler: I am coming to that point.
I was going to explain what I believe the net figure is likely to be as a result of the Bill. Not only are there 5,000 committals, but the conditions of our prisons at present are such that we have no fewer than 3,000 men who are sleeping three in a cell. In envisaging a method of improving the prison system, and in the light of the present system of obtaining public funds for the prison system, I think that I am right in turning to any possible method. Therefore, if we


can make better use of the space which is now being used unnecessarily, we shall be doing the right thing.
In Scotland there is the power to arrest the wages actually owing to a man. That power is used sparingly. I have been into this matter, and I find that it is used in about 1,500 cases a year. Its use has a most remarkable effect. In fact, so successful is the system in Scotland that there are only about 30 committals to prison each year. At present, in England and Wales, magistrates' courts and, in many cases, the High Court and county courts, have no alternative but to send defaulters to prison. No more constructive method of dealing with them is available. The committal can be suspended, on condition that the man makes regular payments, but if he fails there is nothing but prison. That is the law.
The Bill provides a constructive alternative. Instead of sending a man to prison, or holding the threat of prison over his head, the Court can make an order for the employer to make a deduction from the man's salary or wages. In reply to the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones), I conclude that the net result of the Bill would be that we might be able to keep 2,000 men out of prison every year. If we can do that, it will be a result well worth achieving, in terms of the benefit to society, to the human happiness of the men themselves, and to the women, who will get the money to which they are entitled.
The number of men who go to prison affects me particularly as Home Secretary, because I hate in my soul the taint and the dour weight of prison upon a man's mind and future. But there is also the plight of the women and children who are dependent upon what they receive under a maintenance order but who are unable to get the money to which they are entitled by the order. I speak of women who are struggling desperately to bring up children single-handed, to keep a decent home for them, and to avoid becoming a charge upon the community. These women cannot understand why the husbands or fathers are not made to meet their obligations.
How many such women are there? I cannot obtain absolutely exact figures, although I have been in touch with the

National Assistance Board and every source that I could possibly find, but I gather that over 25,000 maintenance orders are made every year in the magistrates' courts.
There is another figure to which we should pay some attention; namely, the amount paid annually by the National Assistance Board. I have the Board's Reports for 1955 and 1956. The 1955 Report tells us that the amount paid annually to separated wives alone is about £7½ million. The 1956 Report shows a slightly higher figure. This figure includes a number of women who have not got maintenance orders, because they cannot trace the men or husbands who should be maintaining them. The House, therefore, must not think that we should be saving the whole of that sum by passing the Bill. I am simply indicating the size of the problem that we are dealing with in regard to the separated wives and the amount of money due to them.
I am also aware that, besides some of the arguments which I have put in general in opening these remarks, there are arguments on the other side.

Mr. H. Hynd: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, would he explain a little further the figure to which he thinks he will be able to reduce the number of people going to prison? He said he hoped to reduce it to something like 3,000. Who would they be? Would they be the people who refused to work?

Mr. Butler: I do not think I said that I could give any exact figure of the number to which I hope to reduce it. I said "If we could keep 2,000 men out of prison", and that is all I said. I do not think we could give any exact statistics of the number to which we might reduce the figure by the effect of this Bill until we see it in operation. I do not think it would be fair to give any better figure than that. I believe that if this Bill passes we could keep 2,000 men out of prison, and that is as far as I can go.

Mr. Alfred Robens: When the right hon. Gentleman says that he thinks this Bill might keep 2,000 men out of prison, is that figure one which he himself gives as his own opinion, or is it based on statistics prepared for him which might have a certain amount of authenticity?

Mr. Butler: It is based on the best figures we can get, and, as a matter of fact, it is a conservative estimate. I referred to 5,000 committals annually. I have reduced it to 2,000 in order not to exaggerate my case, but it might be more. This figure is based on certain inquiries we have made in certain large cities, in magistrates' courts in the country and in some county courts, so that it is based on the best statistical evidence I can get.

Mr. Robens: It is not a figure at random?

Mr. Butler: No; it is not a figure at random.
Some people fear that attachment for maintenance purposes is the thin end of a very long wedge. People may ask whether, when we are introducing this Bill for the attachment of wages, we are to extend the principle of attachment to such matters as civil debt, hire-purchase agreements, fines or any other purposes. I have been approached by some hon. Members who are trade unionists, and I have given an answer to them officially, and I now give it in my speech. It is not the intention of the Government to extend attachment to any of these things or any other purposes. I hope that will be an undertaking which will give satisfaction to trade union members.
I should also like to say to the employers—because there have been criticisms from employers and the employers' organisations—that I realise that this Bill involves a considerable departure in the law of the country from the Act of 1870. It is an important departure, and it is for a specific purpose; and all I can do in commending it to the House is to say with the greatest possible emphasis that it is not our intention to extend attachment beyond what broadly is the case in Scotland and what is contained in the Bill before the House today.

Mr. Maurice Orbach: This is a point of fundamental importance. Could the right hon. Gentleman help the House by saying how many committals have been made in county courts for debt?

Mr. Butler: No, I could not give that figure without notice, but my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary will be replying, and I will ask him to try to give the figure in the course of his reply.

Mr. Charles Pannell: The right hon. Gentleman did not make himself clear. Will he say that he is not prepared to extend the law to the extent that it applies in Scotland? He did not make that perfectly clear. He used words indicating that he would equate the position with what it is in Scotland, but that is not my understanding of what he wanted to do. Therefore, for the sake of the record, presumably he is putting the point that he will be satisfied with the purposes in this Bill and no more?

Mr. R. W. Sorensen: Could the right hon. Gentleman give a complete assurance that the Government will not at any time introduce a Bill for that purpose?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) has done me a service, because there was an inaccuracy in my remarks of which I was at once aware directly I had perpetrated it. The Scottish law, of which I am partially aware, being partially Scottish myself, goes further than the Bill, and it is not the intention of the Government in legislating for England and Wales in the matter of attachment of wages to go further than the Bill. I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter. If the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) would kindly repeat his question, I will do my best to answer it.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance on behalf of Her Majesty's Government not only that it is not the intention but that, in fact, no Bill of this kind will ever be introduced to cover anything more than the point now covered by this Bill?

Mr. Butler: I can give an assurance only for the Government of which I am a member, and that I can give. I cannot give an assurance for Parliament, because Parliament is always free and sovereign to do what it wishes. In so far as I can give an assurance, I have done so privately to trade union Members of the House and to representatives of employers' associations, and I should be very glad to give it now, on behalf of this Government, that we do not intend to go further than this.
We do not intend to go further because we consider that maintenance obligations


are in a class by themselves. We think that because the hardship to the women, the burden throws upon the taxpayer in supporting those who are compelled to apply for National Assistance, and the futility of putting men in prison, constitute a unique combination of circumstances which justifies, in our view, a resort to attachment for the enforcement of maintenance obligations. But those circumstances do not arise in relation to other forms of debts or fines. Perhaps that is the best answer to the hon. Member for Leyton.
Before I come to the details of the Bill, I should like to give some idea of those who support and those who do not support such a plan. The Fischer Williams Committee in 1934 marshalled the arguments and came down in favour of a plan of this sort. The Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce summarised the arguments of the Fischer Williams Committee but concluded that the introduction of attachment in England and Wales would be inadvisable. For my own part, I am not convinced by the Report of the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce because, although it went into the matter, I think that it summarised the argument somewhat summarily, and, although it came down against such a plan, I am not convinced that it was right. I am fortified in this by the fact that the Chairman, Lord Morton of Henryton, has since stated that he is now in favour of trying attachment, and he has been good enough to inform me and to authorise me to say that he thinks the advantages of attachment outweigh its disadvantages.

Mr. D. Jones: I do not want to keep on interrupting the right hon. Gentleman, but he is misrepresenting the situation a little. What Lord Morton of Henryton said in Australia was that further reflection had made him doubt whether the Royal Commission had been wise to decide as it did. That is rather different from saying that he had now been convinced that it was wrong.

Mr. Butler: I am aware of what Lord Morton said in Australia, and that is why I got in touch with him. I thought that a quotation from what he said in Australia would not be sufficient to quote in this debate, and I got in touch with him myself. He has been good

enough to send me a letter authorising me to say that he thinks the advantages of attachment outweigh its disadvantages. I cannot go further than that, but that is what he has said. That represents my opinion the advantages of attachment outweigh its disadvantages, broadly for the reasons I have given.
One can add the views of organisations which support the Bill. Many of them, of course, are women's organisations, which is not suprising. There is the Married Women's Association, the National Association of Probation Officers, the Howard League for Penal Reform, the National Marriage Guidance Council, the National Women Citizens Association, the Association for Moral and Social Hygiene, the St. Joan's Social and Political Alliance, the Six Point Group, the Women's Freedom League, etc. I am authorised also to say that the Magistrates' Association, in a message I have also received, considers not only that an inquiry should be set up to see whether this is a good idea, but my message from their official supporters indicates that they also are in favour of a scheme of this sort.
I am putting all this moderately because there are arguments on both sides. It will, however, be seen that this is a change which is not being undertaken by me or by the Government lightly after the experiences of my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport in bringing in her Bill and in her experience in the Committee upstairs.
I am fortified by an emphatic recommendation in favour of attachment from my own Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders, which has examined this problem and the operation of the Scottish system of arrestment with the greatest possible care. Those are the general reasons why I think it is worth pursuing the Bill and that is why I want, very shortly, to put its details before the House.
Part I deals with the registration of orders. Here I can cite the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce, which in paragraph 582 of its Report recommended that maintenance orders made by the High Court should be capable of being registered and enforced in a magistrates' court. The Bill gives effect to this recommendation with only minor modifications.
Now, as regards magistrates' court orders, as far as I know, the Royal Commission did not consider whether a two-way traffic would be desirable We think that it would, and in Clause 1 of the Bill we have provided for the registration in the High Court of an order made by a magistrates' court and its enforcement in the High Court or the county court.
Under Clause 2 (3), registration will be granted as of course on the application of the person entitled to receive payments under the order, who may be the woman or the collecting officer. Registration in the High Court will make available to the woman the enforcement procedures which are available in the High Court but not in the magistrates' court. That was a point which arose in Standing Committee when the previous Bill was discussed. This point may make the Bill more acceptable to some of the critics who considered it before.
At present, for example, if a man runs up arrears on a magistrates' court order, he can be committed to prison, or distress can be levied on his cash or goods, but these methods do not enable the woman to obtain satisfaction from any capital or the sources of any unearned income that the man may have. In the High Court, she can secure payment of the arrears in a variety of ways. That is not exactly an improvement, but is an extra power to the woman which gives greater force to the Bill. There may not be many cases in which a man with a magistrates' court maintenance order against him has property to which High Court procedures are appropriate, but where he has I see no reason why the woman should not be able to recover the money owing to her from this form of property. So much for Part I of the Bill.
Part II deals with the attachment of earnings. It follows broadly the Bill introduced earlier by my hon. Friend. It was not an easy Bill for a private Member to handle and my hon. Friend performed a public service by causing the subject to be discussed in this House and outside. Part II is based, in the main, upon my hon. Friend's Bill, although the new model incorporates features which, I think, she will recognise as improvements. Members will, therefore, be familiar with many of the details and I will sum them up as follows.
Briefly, Part II enables a court by which a maintenance order is enforceable—which may be the High Court, the county court or the magistrates' court—to make an attachment of earnings order if, but only if, payments under the maintenance order are in arrear to the extent of four weekly payments or two payments due at other intervals.
The attachment of earnings order will specify a normal deduction rate and a protected earnings rate. The order will require the employer to make deductions from the man's earnings at the normal deduction rate unless by so doing it would reduce the take-home pay of the man below the protected earnings rate. That, I hope, will work out in a fair, honourable and decent way.
To sum up what it means, I would describe it like this. The normal deduction rate will be the rate at which the court thinks the man's earnings should be applied for the purpose of satisfying the maintenance order and paying off arrears and costs. The protected earnings rate will be the rate below which the court considers the deduction should not be allowed to reduce the man's take-home pay. So in fixing the protected earnings rate, the court must have regard to the man's resources and needs and to the needs of persons for whom he must provide. In other words, if a man has acquired a second family, the court must have regard to the needs of that family as well as to those of the beneficiary under the maintenance order. I do not think, therefore, that in practice this will work out inhumanly or unfairly.
I should like to carry this further by giving an example. Suppose that after deduction of Income Tax, National Insurance and health contributions, a man's take-home pay is £10 a week, and is subject to an attachment order specifying a normal deduction rate of £3 a week and a protected earnings rate minimum of £6 a week, the employer then deducts £3, leaving the man with £7, which is in excess of the protected earnings rate. Supposing the man has a bad week and what the Bill calls his "relevant earnings" fall below £10, say, to £8, the employer must then leave him at least a minimum of £6 specified by the protected earnings rate, and he can deduct only £2. That, I think, explains the generality of the two forms of reduction and also the details of a particular case.

Mr. F. Blackburn: Does the wife lose the £1?

Mr. Butler: In that case, if the protected earnings rate is specified at £6, the wife will get only £2. There is an attempt to be fair to both sides.

Mr. Robens: Would the right hon. Gentleman elucidate this point? I understand that he said that if the take-home pay were £10 and the order against the man were for £3 a week, the employer would deduct that £3, leaving the man with £7, which would be £1 more than the protected amount that he had to have. In what way are the arrears to be paid if, in fact, the £3 order is deducted on that one occasion and the attachment order is not made until the man is four weeks in arrears? How do the arrears get paid?

Mr. Butler: I was coming to that. I was going to say that the sums that I have given must be subject to the observations which I am now going to make, namely, that the scheme is self-adjusting, so that over a period a man will be left with the total protected earnings and the woman with the total deductions to which she is entitled. Therefore, we shall have to look at the scheme over a period to see how it works out.

Mr. Charles Royle: May we have this point made clear? In relation to the right hon. Gentleman's second example, that £1 would continue to be part of the arrears and would be subject to further adjustment by the magistrates on another occasion.

Mr. Butler: That is so.
So much for that sort of case which may arise. I want to deal with the doubts of the employers about attachment. I have referred to some of the doubts of trade unionists. To do them justice, the doubts of the employers reflect the doubts of the trade unionists, and in looking back on British history, especially on the history of British labour, we must respect the traditions that have come down to us.
I think that both employers and trade unionists have an anxiety not to be drawn into the domestic affairs of the men or to have a new and complicated task laid upon them which might mean interfering in the private lives of the men. In reply to that, which is a very genuine fear and which I state because I was

not a member of the Standing Committee, I would make the following answers. First, the number of attachment orders likely to be made will be infinitesimal in relation to the total labour force of the country. The chance of any small or medium-sized employer getting one is pretty slender. Second, we have done our best to draft the Bill so that employers will be put to a minimum of trouble. So far as it is possible in the drafting the employer is insulated from the court proceedings and from the wife. He is not a party to the proceedings. He does not pay the money to the wife, but to an officer of the court. This is done on purpose to keep the employer away as far as possible.
I am looking into the possibility of preparing an explanation in the form of a leaflet, for the assistance of employers who may have to deal with attachment orders, in which the operation will be explained in ordinary language with simple examples. I have taken a test case in one large city, which I have been given permission to mention, namely, Sheffield. I find that there, men who are subject to maintenance orders sometimes arrange voluntarily with their employers to make deductions from their wages and to send them to the collecting officer. The arrangement is said to work well and to be helpful to the men concerned.
If that can be done voluntarily without disaster, I find it difficult to see why it should not be done and be equally helpful to a man under the order of a court. If a man does not want his employer to know that there is a maintenance order against him, he can ensure that no attachment order is made by making regular payments. Under Clause 6 a court cannot make an attachment order unless a man is the equivalent of four weeks' payments in arrears.
It is possible for arguments to be brought forward, and they have been brought forward in our previous discussions, that this Measure will give more publicity to the private affairs of a man or will render his relations with his employer less satisfactory. But I should have thought that the common sense answer to that is that when, under present orders, a man refuses to pay up and is sent to prison, he surely attracts more attention to himself and his job and his relationships with his employer than he


would under the Bill. While I have been trying to treat the anxieties of employers and trade unionists and the feelings of people and families concerned with sympathy, I think that the Bill will be better not only for domestic relations in the family but for relations in industry than the system which we are working at present.

Mr. H. Hynd: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not overlook the case of a man who, through illness, has fallen into arrears, quite apart from his own fault. We have many cases like that in our courts.

Mr. Butler: That is the sort of case which we must adjust during the passage of the Bill. We are only at the beginning; we must take a human and practical view of these matters when we discuss them in the future.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: Surely the Bill is permissive in that it enables the court to make an order of attachment if a man is four weeks in arrears? That does not mean that the court will do so automatically and invariably?

Mr. Butler: That is so. It is found in Scotland that the fact that a man's wages can be "arrested," as they call it, encourages him powerfully to pay up, and we may find here that the courts do not actually have to make orders in more than a small proportion of the cases. I sincerely hope that will be so.
I should point out also that when the matter was discussed earlier, the position regarding merchant seamen was raised and there was some controversy. We have decided to omit merchant seamen altogether from the scope of the Bill, because it was represented to us that it would be a matter of the greatest practical difficulty to apply a system of attachment to them.
I have been asked by one or two employers whether we can handle this not through a system of attachment, but through the P.A.Y.E. system. I will—I think very wisely as an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer—leave it to my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary to deal with any detailed points which may arise. But I have received from the Revenue a memoranda on the subject which illustrates to me that to use that

system to deal with this matter would be far too complicated and would not, in fact, be possible. I have regretfully come to the conclusion that I cannot adopt that system instead of the one in the Bill.
I am content that any of these matters should be considered by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary and dealt with in his reply. I should like also to make an offer to discuss our problems with the British Employers' Confederation and the T.U.C. No satisfactory discussions have taken place, and so I wish to make that offer when moving the Second Reading of this Bill. We wish to carry people with us and to let them understand what is happening and precisely what we are doing by this Bill. We shall be glad to consider any criticism of points of detail to see whether we can improve the Bill in Committee.
After the fullest consideration of this important social problem, and having quoted all the authorities I have mentioned, I find myself led to the same conclusion as my own Advisory Council. The Council said it thought the arguments were decisive and summed up the matter in these words:
The social and economic consequences of the present system are so lamentable that we cannot feel it right to deny to the courts an opportunity of making the defaulter pay without sending him to prison.
For that reason I recommend this Bill to the House. We are faced with an obvious wrong and a deeply felt grievance for which, I believe, that the Bill will go a long way to provide a remedy. Providing we discuss it together I believe that it should do so without doing any injury or violence to the legitimate interests either of trade unionists or employers.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: The House would wish to join with me in thanking the Home Secretary for what has been a very fair and clear explanation of a most difficult Bill. It is a difficult Bill not so much for its technicalities as because it involves both our emotion and our reason. Unfortunately, our emotion and our reason do not always lead us in the same direction. That is why many of us are divided in ourselves in our approach to this Bill. That being so, it is not surprising that there should be a quite deep division


inside the ranks of both the main political parties in this House.
Nor is it surprising that, in the early stages at least, the Magistrates' Association was deeply divided upon this issue. Although it has come down in favour of the principle of attachment, as the right hon. Gentleman has told us, it is only just over a year ago that the very proposition that it should set up a committee to investigate this problem was passed by only 219 votes to 209. Some of the speakers in the discussion who supported the setting up of the committee were nevertheless opposed at that time to the principle of attachment. They included, for example, Lady Bragg, who was a member of the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce, and Lady Artemus Jones. The committee, when it was set up, reported unanimously in favour of the principle. That view was endorsed unanimously by the Council of the Magistrates' Association, and the Report of the Council was accepted at the Annual Conference of the Association, I think last month.
I mention that to emphasise that this is not a clash between men and women, magistrates and others, employers and workers, or trade unionists and non-trade unionists. It is a conflict of very sincere opinion between various groups in our society with regard to issues which some of them regard as matters of principle. The conflict which is raging revolves around the most effective way of tackling a serious social problem. Tonight we have to decide whether the advantage which will be derived from the Bill by society as a whole is such as to compensate for the surrender of principle which is involved for many of my hon. Friends and many members of the public.
As the debate develops, I hope that it will not be suggested that some hon. Members are on the side of the victims and some on the side of the evildoers. All of us are anxious to find the best way of making effective the decisions which have been taken by the courts of the land. I know that many of my hon. Friends, and no doubt many hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies on the Government benches, hesitate to say that in every case the moral responsibility for the break-up of a marriage rests with the party on whose

shoulders the legal responsibility has been placed. But that is not the problem to which we have to direct our minds tonight.
The Home Secretary has pleaded persuasively for the Bill. Many of his arguments will be generally accepted in all parts of the House. Because his main emphasis was on the merits of the Bill, I shall lay special emphasis on those aspects which give rise to enxiety on the part of many of my hon. Friends. At this stage, perhaps it is proper that I should reassure the right hon. Gentleman by telling him that we do not propose to divide the House against the Second Reading of the Bill.
The first criticism of the Home Secretary's introduction of the Bill is that he has overthrown the unanimous decision of the Royal Commission. He told us very frankly that that was the position, although the chairman has now changed his point of view, and I thought the interpretation by the Home Secretary of what Lord Morton originally said in Australia was right and that my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) was wrong. Unfortunately, the fact that Lord Morton has changed his mind does not necessarily mean that all the other members of the Commission have departed from the point of view they took up at that time. When recommendation 128 was made, it was made after the most prolonged deliberation, and after the Royal Commission had consulted the British Employers' Confederation, the Trades Union Congress, the nationalised industries and the Cooperative Union. At that stage, only the Co-operative Union was in favour of the principle of attachment. I propose to return a little later, if I may, to the attitude of the Trades Union Congress.
Apart from that major criticism of the right hon. Gentleman, there are other points which are worrying some hon. Members on this side of the House. The first is one to which the Home Secretary referred, and that is the fear that the Bill may lead to attachment for other debts. That is of considerable historical importance, because the trade union movement thought that it had seen the end of attachment and that the inviolability of the pay packet had been secured by two Measures, first the one to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, the


Wages Attachment Abolition Act, 1870, and secondly by Charles Bradlaugh's Act of 1876, amending the Truck Act.
We appreciate the assurance which the right hon. Gentleman has given tonight that it is not the intention of the Government to extend this principle to other debts. He has gone tonight rather further than he did in the Answer he gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs) on 6th December. On that occasion he said:
…I have no intention of introducing legislation…".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1957; Vol. 579, c. 83.]
What we want to know from the right hon. Gentleman is not that he has no intention, not that the Government have no intention of doing so, but what advice the Government would give to the House if another Private Member's Bill were introduced extending attachment, for example, to debts in respect of hire-purchase agreements. We shall not overlook the fact that the Bill which the Home Secretary has introduced began its career as a Private Member's Bill during the last Session. After all, one could put forward a very plausible case for extending attachment, once it is accepted in principle, to arrears of rates, rent of council houses, or fines and debts of that kind. We have no guarantee that if the right hon. Gentleman should leave office his colleagues would not introduce the principle into another Bill.

Mr. C. Pannell: When he leaves office we shall be in office.

Mr. Greenwood: My hon. Friend really must not be quite so pessimistic; the right hon. Gentleman may leave office even before the next General Election. I was about to say that Prime Ministers come and go whether they are "the best we have got" or not, and of course Home Secretaries come and go—even if they are the best Home Secretaries since Lord Kilmuir. If at any time a future Government were to introduce such a Bill, the fear in the minds of my hon. Friends is that their opposition to it would be weakened by the fact that they had conceded the precedent on this occasion. That, I think, is a serious apprehension on their part and one to which we should give due weight.
I turn to a second criticism of the Bill. It is said that the proposal will provide

a more effective way of enforcing the orders of the courts. That, of course, is an attractive argument, but I think the case can be over-stated. As I see it, there are three types of defaulters who at present are sent to prison. First, there are the natural "bad hats" who will dodge their obligations under any circumstances and on all occasions. I do not think the Bill will make very much difference to them. Secondly, there are the men who feel so indignant about the way they have been treated by the courts that they are prepared to go to prison rather than to pay. I have no doubt at all that many of them will be prepared to take up a peripatetic mode of living rather than have their wages attached to contribute to the upkeep of somebody for whom their antipathy is so great.
Finally, there are the feckless ones who fall into arrears through carelessness and are never able to catch up. That leads me to a point I should like to bring to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, a point put by the National Association of Probation Officers which, as the right hon. Gentleman told us, supports the principle of this Bill.
The National Association of Probation Officers tells me that in 1953 it made a survey of 256 courts taken at random throughout the country to see what provision was made for the collection of debts in cases of this kind. That survey revealed that in only six courts was the collecting officer available one evening a week, in only one case was he available on Saturday afternoon, and in only 53 cases out of the 256 did his office remain open during lunch intervals. I do not wish for a moment to criticise the collecting officers who were involved, but I think it might be well for the right hon. Gentleman to consider the possibility of additional collecting officers being appointed in order to allow extra hours of duty or a special rearrangement of hours in order that members of the public could pay or collect their debts at times which did not interfere with their earning capacity.
The National Association of Probation Officers concluded its letter to me by saying:
We are of opinion that if the courts make orders they should provide every possible facility to encourage payment, and that enforcement measures should be taken when there is wilful default only, and only as a final resort.


The third criticism which I want to stress is one to which the Home Secretary referred. It is that this proposition injects a new, complicating factor into industrial relations. I know that only a comparatively small number of employers are affected. Nevertheless, any hon. Member who refers to the appendix to the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce will see that this is a point of view held by the Trades Union Congress and also by the British Employers' Confederation. Although it appears from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that this is a method which operates perfectly well on a voluntary basis in Sheffield, it did not seem to be the view of the two organisations consulted that it would work on a national scale, and on a basis of compulsion. The two things are, after all, very different.
At the moment we expect employers to make deductions in respect of P.A.Y.E. and also in respect of National Insurance. I should not be surprised if many of them genuinely object to a further complication of this kind, but I do not think that that is an objection of overwhelming importance. We should not forget, however, that, other things being equal, we should probably find that an employer would prefer to employ a man without an attachment order against him rather than a man who has an attachment order against him. Quite part from that, the fact that a man has an attachment order against him may well prejudice his obtaining employment at all.
I notice that Mr. Reginald Pestell, a magistrate in the New River Petty Sessional Division of London and an officer of the National Marriage Guidance Council, addressing the Magistrates' Association a year ago, said that when he was a probation officer he found that even a request for a certificate of earnings sometimes had an adverse effect on a man in times of unemployment. I often feel that we have become so accustomed to full employment since 1945 that we forget the possible implications of some of our legislation during periods of unemployment. It might well be that if we were faced with a serious recession in this country men who had attachment orders against them might find it very difficult indeed to obtain the employment they wanted.
The last criticism which I want to make is one of great importance. It is one which I think the right hon. Gentleman met very effectively indeed, but I want to put it to the Government once again because I do not think that we can afford the slightest scintilla of doubt upon this aspect of the Bill.
Many of my hon. Friends and many members of the public are critical of the fact that the Bill appears to be directed against those people who earn their living as wage earners or as salary earners but apparently does not affect the shopkeeper or the rentier It seems probable, however, that those sources of income can be attached either by a garnishee order or a charging order. If that is not so, it appears to me that Clause 3 (1) makes provision for that procedure to operate in future in such cases.
For the greater accuracy of the record. I should like to bring to the attention of the House four observations which were made at the first sitting of Standing Committee B which was considering in the last Session the Bill introduced by the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers). That was on 16th May. I apologise for quoting rather extensively, but I want there to be no shadow of doubt as to whether or not all forms of income are included. My hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) said:
The Bill provides that the justices can go to a man's employer and ask him to stop from the man's wage each week a certain sum which the court shall lay down Why not go to the employer's bank manager? Suppose the employer has an attachment order against him. Why not go to his bank manager, see what this man's credit balance is and attach it over a certain period until the debt is met? Why should we not sop every week so much from that bank balance and have the amount paid into the court.
The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir P. Agnew) said that if the hon. Lady did not accept the extension of the attachment principle to all sources of income it might be regarded as an example of class legislation.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department referred to these two points at two stages during the subsequent discussion. He said:
There are a number of ways in which High Court orders can be enforced by going against the property or the income of the man who is in default of an order. Two of those


go by the names of a garnishee order and a charging order. By a garnishee order one can attach any debt as it becomes due from a debtor to a creditor. For example, if a man defaults on a money order in the High Court, whether ii be a maintenance order or any other kind of order, and he has a bank balance, that is a debt owing from the banker to the creditor, and can, under the existing law, be attached by garnishee. The same thing applies with all other types of debt.
A little later on he explained once again the garnishee and charging orders machinery. He said:
…it works in a precisely comparable way with the machinery under this Bill. There is no discrimination at all. From my experience I can tell my hon. and gallant Friend that if there is a defaulter on a money order, and if the sources of his property are unknown, he may be summoned to appear before the court and can be examined by way of judgment summons about what property he has. If, for example, it is discovered that he owns some stocks and shares, one can apply ex parte for a charging order. That establishes a charge on the source of payment and the secretary of the company, unless the charging order is discharged, will pay the dividend to the person in whose favour the charging order was made, and not to the person whose name appears on the register as the owner of the shares."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 16th May, 1957; c. 13–35.]
If the hon. and learned Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary can assure us that in consequence of this Bill there would be no difference whatsoever in the treatment of various sources of income, the Bill will be a great deal less offensive than it originally appeared to be in the eyes of my hon. Friends.

Mr. C. Pannell: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, he will appreciate that the Committee quite overwhelmingly carried the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) and added the words "and all other income". Hon. Members were not satisfied generally with the statement of the Joint Under-Secretary of State and they thought it needed emphasising.

Mr. Greenwood: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, as I always am. What I have tried to do is to put very fairly before the House the two points of view expressed in the Standing Committee, so that we can have an authoritative and, I hope, final judgment of the matter in the hon. and learned Gentleman's reply.
I have outlined the apprehension that many of us feel about the Bill, and now I will, if I may, turn to the reasons that

lead us not to oppose its Second Reading. One argument, in particular, should, I think, weigh very heavily with those who believe in the rule of law and in an ordered society. We cannot allow people indefinitely to dodge their responsibilities, and to defy the law of the land. That is what is happening at present. I have no doubt that it will continue to happen, in some measure, but it is a duty for all of us to do everything we can to reduce it to the very minimum. Unless we do so, not only will injustice continue but—and perhaps more serious—contempt for the law will grow.
There are two other considerations that appeal to me, and the first is this. We have tried to look at this from the point of view of the Home Secretary and of the Home Office. And on this side we are looking at the matter, too, from the point of view of a party that has always worked for penal reform, and that has complimented the right hon. Gentleman on the way that he has embarked on a programme of reform. But it does seem to me that that reform will be indefinitely postponed if, every year, we continue to imprison, and I quote the right hon. Gentleman's words, "something approaching 5,000 men" who could be dealt with in some other way. Even if the Bill reduces that number by only the figure of 2,000 that the right hon. Gentleman threw in, without his being too positive about it, it would be a welcome contribution towards relieving overcrowding in our prisons.
The last argument that influences me is one that we cannot ignore. We cannot really welcome the financial results of the present system, which involve us in finding £7½ million a year for the care of the 25,000 mothers to whom the Home Secretary referred and, I suppose, the approximately 50,000 dependants who are also a charge upon public funds—

Mr. Douglas Glover: The figure was 25,000 a year.

Mr. Greenwood: Yes, and also their dependants—a figure altogether, I suppose, of about 70,000 people, who cost us £7½ million a year.
It is because the Bill has in view, I think, these three ends to which I have referred—and they are ends in which all of us concur—that we shall not oppose


its Second Reading, although we dislike the principle of attachment. We still have misgivings about it. We appreciate the way in which the right hon. Gentleman presented this Measure to us, and we shall have, I hope, a profitable, useful and constructive discussion tonight. We still hope for further reassurances from the Joint Under-Secretary when he replies. If, unfortunately, those are not forthcoming, we shall seek to amend the Bill during subsequent stages, and we reserve our right to accept or oppose its Third Reading.

9.40 p.m.

Miss Joan Vickers: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for letting me catch your eye in order that I may say "thank you" to my right hon. Friend, and also, I think, to the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood), who, if I may say so, has made a most helpful speech. I also want to express the thanks of the thousands of women and children who, in the period since the Bill was first moved, have been in touch with me by post.
Since I started the campaign on behalf of the Bill, I have received many letters saying how grateful women would be if some measure of this kind could be taken. Not only women will be pleased with the Bill; quite a number of men will also be pleased. Since it has been discussed in this House and in the Press, many men have written to me—and I have also seen quite a number—asking how they could do what has been mentioned by my right hon. Friend, namely, make voluntary arrangements with their employers. I am hoping that the Bill will also help in that way.
Some men find things rather difficult at times. They may miss paying for one week, then they get into debt and find that the next week they have not enough money to pay for the two weeks. These people are not genuinely bad but sometimes rather feckless. By taking something from them each week their housekeeping will be facilitated and they will feel happier in their minds, as well as more able to get on with their day-to-day lives.

Mr. Robens: I take it that the hon. Lady is not suggesting that the Bill provides for the collection of maintenance orders. As I understand it, it provides

only for the collection of arrears. The matter to which she is now referring is outside the terms of the Bill.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I think the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. Is it not the case that the Bill does provide for the collection of maintenance orders, as well as arrears?

Miss Vickers: Only if a person defaults. A person can make a voluntary arrangement. The Bill deals only with defaulters. Many people have been in touch with me telling me that they have been paying instalments quite happily and have started a new life in a new town, and asking whether they would have to tell their employers about the arrangements they have made. I made it clear to them that the Bill dealt only with defaulters. The magistrate can tell the woman when the man concerned is in arrears to the extent of four weeks, and as the law stands at the moment she can then go to the court and put in another order against him.
I should like to add my thanks to the various organisations which have supported the Bill, besides those mentioned by my right hon. Friend. I should like to mention the Marriage Guidance Council and the Howard League for Penal Reform. Support has also come from many social workers who are in contact with these people, and we are very grateful for their support. Since the First Reading of the Bill there has been a great deal of discussion on this matter in the Press. Support has been forthcoming from the Manchester Guardian, the Daily Sketch, the News Chronicle, the Daily Telegraph and the Evening News, to mention a few.
Finally, I should like to thank the Members of the Committee who gave me magnificent support during very many protracted hours upstairs in Committee. I should specially like to thank the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) and the hon. Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet), who were indefatigable in their aid in Committee. My Bill had a very good Second Reading. In fact, sixteen people spoke and only one voice was raised against it. Unfortunately, however, owing to the late date at which it reached its Committee stage—which was not until May—only two of the original supporters were available to sit on the Committee. Therefore, we got on the Committee


people who were either against the Bill or who had no real knowledge or interest in it. I think that that is why the Bill fell by the wayside.
I suggest that that time was not wasted. During the Committee stage we were able to sound public opinion. I consider that we were perhaps lucky to have had these protracted meetings in Committee, because we now have a much better Bill, and I should like to thank my right hon. Friend for introducing a Bill which, I think, is much more satisfactory to most hon. Members of the Committee. One hon. Gentleman opposite mentioned the subject of Lord Morton having changed his mind. It may be that a little Commonwealth co-operation came into it, because I have had 17 letters from various people in different States in Australia who were also anxious to have a similar Bill. That may have been one of the things that influenced Lord Morton to conic down on the side of this Bill.
One realises that many doubts have been expressed by both employers and trade unionists, but I should like to pay a tribute to the help given by the Cooperative Union, which has been very staunch all the way through in its evidence in supporting a Bill of this kind. I agree with my right hon. Friend that the fears of the employers have not been fully allayed. I think that employers imagine that affected persons are likely to be found in their own factories, and that it will make a little difference in the relations between them and their employees. I should like to remind hon. Members who feel this way that for many years this method of attachment from the pay packet has been going on in the Services. If we take the case of a ship, and there are no people who live more close together than the men in the Royal Navy, I am quite certain that it has not made any difference to them in any way.
I should like to say also that I realise the fears of a great many trade unionists in regard to this Bill. I study the opinions of various trade unionists, and, as some hon. Members will realise, I take a particular interest in Tribune. I have read various opinions expressed there, and I think there is at present a change of thought in regard to this matter. There was an article by Mr. Harry Knight, General Secretary of the A.S.S.E.T., headed "My Proposal: No More 'Fares, please'". In this article, he says that his

proposal is that passenger transport fares be abolished, and that instead a direct tax of 2s. 6d. per week should be imposed on both employers and employees to be collected with the usual National Health Insurance contributions. There may well be some difference of opinion on this matter among trade unionists, but the article concludes by saying:
Here is a chance for the Labour Party to do something really revolutionary. Will it? Can it? Dare it? I leave it to you, chums; your answer is as good as mine.
I feel that, even among trade unionists, there are some differences of opinion as to what can be done in this regard.
I wish also to refer to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Moody) who was a member of the Standing Committee, and who has written in the Woodworkers' Journal certain remarks concerning this Bill. He ends his article by saying:
All women are not angels.
We should have some time to wait before this Bill goes on the Statute Book. He praises the Bill, and ends his article by saying:
In the meantime, some other Member may be lucky in the ballot to produce a better Bill to deal with an undesirable situation.
I think that tonight we have a better Bill, and I hope that it will deal with the undesirable situation in the way he wishes.
I would also point out that we are apt to think only of the weekly wage earner who is in difficulties concerning maintenance. I am not going to take up the time of the House by quoting from many letters which I have here, but I should like to mention one. This is from a woman who says:
I have a great struggle to bring up my two children. My ex-husband never gave me a penny to clothe me or help with my daughters' education. He already owes me nine years' maintenance. He is very comfortably off. He has a good job as a petroleum chemist, and he must be earning £2,000 a year. He also has a pension of £400 a year, perhaps more, from his old firm.
He was due to give her under the maintenance order £104 a year, and he has not paid her anything in nine years. It is that type of person we wish to get at as well.
As I mentioned earlier, I have myself been able to assist in the making of a number of voluntary arrangements. A


man came to me the other day, having been given permission to come to me after being warned by the police that he would have to be arrested for owing the sum of £30. I found out what his firm was, and I asked if I might go down and see them. They agreed to lend him the money; it was at the police station by 12 o'clock that day, and he is now able to live happily with his family. The firm agreed to take off 7s. a week.
Quite the contrary kind of case is that of a man who owed £120. He had a divorced wife, with two children, and a wife to whom he was presently married with whom he was living. He had a job at which he earned £12 a week, an occupational job, that is to say, a job and a flat going with it. He was arrested for owing £120, as a result of which his wife lost her home, both women lost their maintenance, the upshot being that two women and four children had to apply for National Assistance. That kind of thing could perfectly well be avoided if the action suggested in the Bill could have been taken.
The Bill is a preventive Measure. I hope that it will act as a deterrent and make people realise that there is some action which may be taken to enforce the law as it stands. It will come into operation only as regards defaulters. Only when a person is in arrears will it come into effect, and, therefore, it will never come into effect at all if people pay up as they should.
It may be said, perhaps, that this chap is a bad hat, but I have taken the details of the next case from the newspaper, the case of a man now undergoing his thirteenth sentence, having been gaoled in Dorchester yesterday for the thirteenth time in six years. He has spent two years and eight months in prison, the sentence yesterday being two months. He must have been earning sufficient money to have paid up during all that time; otherwise, he would not have had these continual imprisonments. The Bill is designed to stop this kind of thing, when a defaulter goes back periodically to prison. It will be of great help in that respect, and I hope that hon. Members, especially those who have supported me in the past, and those who, perhaps, have yet to make up their minds what they will do about the Bill in the future,

will give it a Second Reading now so that we can go a step towards bringing a great deal of happiness to many people and stability to the lives of thousands of children.

9.54 p.m.

Mr. David Jones: I congratulate the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) on having won over the Home Secretary to her side, and I congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary for the Home Department on being able to stand on two feet now and not having to adopt a neutral attitude, backing the Bill one way. Of course, it is perfectly obvious that, when there are some 8 million trade unionists in the country, there must be differences of opinion. Harry Knight may think that what he suggested would solve the problem of travel in this country, but many of us ask to be excused from believing that that is possible.
I wish to make quite clear at the start that those of us who oppose the Bill do so not out of any lack of sympathy for the unfortunate women. Some of us in our public work have met this problem and if the method proposed in the Bill for solving it would do so, we should be very happy about it; but we have fears, based on experience, that the method proposed in the Bill will not do anything of the kind.
I listened to the Home Secretary and I thought that he introduced the Bill in a very fair way. I should myself have liked to accept his assurance, which he gave in answer to a Written Question last Friday, and repeated tonight, that, so far as he is concerned, this is not the beginning of the attachment of income in England and Wales for all civil debts.
One cannot help reminding the Home Secretary—and I am sorry he is not here to hear me say this—that his record on promises of social legislation in his present and past offices is not one that we can admire too much. Let me remind him that on 14th July, 1955, Lord Monckton, as he now is, then Minister of Labour told my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Monslow) that as soon as Parliamentary time would permit and the Bill had been completed, there would be an implementation of the Gowers Report concerning


amenities on the railways. Nobody will convince me at this stage that no Parliamentary opportunity has arisen between then and today to introduce provision to implement the findings of the Gowers Report. In his past office and in his present office, the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for arranging the business of the House and, therefore, he must accept the major share of the responsibility for that legislation not having been introduced.
Earlier this year, the right hon. Gentleman came down to the House and explained that the Shops Bill was being dropped because there was a lack of Parliamentary time; but we have had a Gracious Speech since then and nothing has been mentioned about the Shops Bill. On two or three occasions in past years, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) has asked the right hon. Gentleman to introduce legislation to clear up the problems of gambling and betting and he has promised so to do. We still have to await that legislation. Much as I should like to accept the right hon. Gentleman's assurance today, his record over the past two or three years in introducing social legislation of the kind I have described has not been too good. Therefore, I have my doubts.
In any case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) pointed out, the right hon. Gentleman can commit only the present Parliament. It may very well be that the Bill is the beginning of an attempt to introduce legislation to provide for the arrestment of wages, as is done in Scotland. The Joint Under-Secretary will know perfectly well that under Scottish law it is possible to arrest a man's income for any debt whatever. Indeed, there are examples in recent months of railwaymen in Dumfriesshire who had difficulties with their landlords—the Dumfries County Council—going home with less than £2 because the remainder of their money had been arrested for arrears of rent.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. J. E. S. Simon): The hon. Member knows, I am sure, that the system in Scotland is different from the one we have devised under the Bill.

Mr. Jones: I agree. At the moment, it is proposed to attach incomes for only one specific purpose. I am pointing out that it is not under a special law of Scotland that income is attached for the claiming of maintenance arrears. It is the general law of Scotland that earnings can be arrested for any civil debt and it is under that provision that the arrears of maintenance are collected.
In introducing the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to mention that he had the 1955 Report of the National Assistance Board concerning the problem faced by the Board. The 1956 Report, however, points out that
In November, 1956, about 71,000 women receiving assistance described themselves as married but living apart from their husbands. This was very close to the figure (70,800) in November, 1955. The number of such women over the age of 60 remained unaltered at 28,900. Many women who are living apart from their husbands have long since lost all trace of them, and particularly among the over-60-age-group (over 40 per cent. of the total), it can be assumed that a high proportion of the husbands either are dead or have reached an age when they are no longer able to work and contribute to the support of their wives.
So, whatever is done in this Bill, that £7½ million which is now having to be paid out will not be diminished very considerably, because a large proportion of these people will still be subject to payments from the National Assistance Board.
Is there any guarantee that the Bill is likely to do the job it is designed to do? I do not want to repeat something which I said in Standing Committee and which my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) said on the Second Reading of the hon. Lady's Bill. I do not propose to sit in judgment on whether it is one party or the other who is the guilty party. I should like to think that the breach in the first place comes with responsibility equally on both sides.
Large numbers of these men, as a result of what they conceive to be unfair treatment by the courts, decline to pay, and as a consequence they are summoned before the courts and sent to prison. The hon. Lady read out details about a man who had gone to prison thirteen times in two-and-a-half years. Earlier in the debate, I interjected when the right hon. Gentleman was speaking to get the figures, as nearly as I could, of the number of people concerned. The


5,000 are committals and if there are many cases of the type of which the hon. Lady spoke the figure will be much less than 2,000.
A man who occupies a decent position and who feels so strongly on this matter that he is prepared to sacrifice his job and go to prison rather than pay is not likely to remain in his job in order that his income can be attached. Does the House really believe that if men feel so strongly about this that they are prepared to go to prison they will want to remain in jobs in order to have their incomes attached? They will become what the National Assistance Board describe as people of no settled way of life. Anyone who knows anything about the National Assistance Act, 1948, knows perfectly well that the National Assistance Board has power in the last analysis to send people to prison because they will persist in conducting themselves without reasonable means of subsistence.
They will go to prison because they are not prepared to work and feel so strongly about what they conceive to be a miscarriage of justice that they are not prepared to be subjected to it. This Bill will not reach them. The Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce went into this matter very fully. I should like to give some of the reasons which it gave in page 283 of the Report for coming down, in spite of what the chairman subsequently said, against the attachment of income. The Report said:
An employer would be more likely to dismiss a man than be put to the trouble of making deductions from his wages and paying the amount deducted to the court collecting officer; or the employer might object on principle to continuing to employ a man against whom such an order had been made. Any system of attachment of wages would tend to upset generally the relations between employers and employees.
These are not my words. They are the words of the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce. Does anyone believe that in the present precarious state of industry in this country we ought to run the risk of poisoning industrial relations to get this thing to work? The Report adds:
Since any such system could be applied to the regular wage earner only, it would discriminate unfairly against him as compared with the casual labourer or the man working on his own account. Attachment of wages

would be of no help where the man was out of work and it was usually because he was out of work that he failed to pay. There was a general predisposition to regard with suspicion or even hostility anything which seemed to savour of an attack on the income of the wage earner.
In spite of what was said by the Home Secretary, the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce made a very careful examination of this and these are its considered proposals. In March, 1952, the Royal Commission submitted a long communication to three important organisations. It is to be found in the appendix to minutes of evidence taken before the Commission. It asked the British Employers' Confederation and the Trades Union Congress for their views and for the views of the nationalised industries. The Confederation went to some length in its reply in which it stated:
It would appear that attachment of debts has never been part of the common law of England and the practice was first introduced by the Common Law Procedure Act, 1834…
But it was abolished by the Wages Attachment Abolition Act of 1870. The Confederation continues:
It is clear that the procedure for the attachment of wages could not be operated without the reason becoming known to the employer, and while it is impossible to say how far such knowledge might react detrimentally on the worker's employment—which would no doubt vary in individual cases—the Confederation has no hesitation in saying that, in so far as such reactions should arise, they would constitute a real element of discord in industrial relations.
These views are not those of the Trades Union Congress but of the British Employers' Confederation—
It would also appear to the Confederation that the principle of the attachment of wages would not be acceptable to the workers themselves, and it is clear that to make the employer the instrument in the enforcement of a measure to which the workers themselves object would of itself inevitably be a source of constant friction.
It is true that was written in 1952. But, thanks to the good offices of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion), I have a communication dated 17th April, 1957, from the Derby and Derbyshire Chamber of Commerce. It states:
This Chamber of Commerce has given most careful consideration to the implications of this Bill"—
the Chamber was referring to the Maintenance Orders (Attachment of Income) Bill—
and is of the opinion that it is a thoroughly bad Bill and should be opposed in the strongest


possible way. Already employers are saddled with the collection of National Insurance and P.A.Y.E. which compulsory deductions have led to the deduction from wages of trades union dues, but it is accepted that these deductions have some bearing upon a person's employment and therefore are not restricted.
That point ought to be noted. Where the deductions have a direct connection with a person's employment and where the deductions are made from the wages of all employees in a factory or in an industry the problem does not arise in quite the same way.
The Chamber of Commerce adds:
However, it is considered that legalisation of compulsory deductions for extraneous dues such as are envisaged in the Bill and which have no connection with a person's employment, will be a gross interference in personal liberty, will open the way to deductions for all manner of debts and will adversely affect industrial relations.
Here we have local employers in Derby and Derbyshire taking precisely the same view as the British Employers' Confederation took five years ago—that this kind of thing is likely to damage and poison industrial relation. The statement continues:
My Chamber seeks your support in registering vigorous opposition to the Bill.
The Trade Union Congress, with its 8 million members, received the same communication and it says:
The General Council discussed your letter at their meeting last week and I have been asked to tell you that they are opposed to the proposal in so far as it relates to deductions from earnings. In coming to this decision the General Council are aware of the difficulty which wives and ex-wives have in many cases of obtaining the moneys due to them. We have no sympathy whatever with the men who default in this way, and we would have liked to have been able to come to another conclusion on the proposal put to you. It would, however, in our view be wrong to impose upon an employer an obligation to make a deduction from the wages of any of his employees in respect of a matter which does not arise from and has no obvious relationship to the man's employment. The Royal Commission will no doubt be aware that deductions from wages have often been a source of industrial unrest and Acts of Parliament have had to be passed to impose strict limits on the kind of deductions which can legally be made. It is because of the effect the proposal would have upon relationships between employers and workmen and not from any desire to ignore the difficulties which have led to the proposal that we are compelled to oppose it.
That is a very fair and reasonable statement on the objections of organised trade unions. We have it from both the trade

union and the employers' side that this kind of thing will be likely to poison industrial relations.
We could go further and say that in many cases, rather than be bothered with this kind of deduction which conceivably would have to be altered from week to week in respect of an insignificant number of their employees, many employers will get rid of the men. The Bill will then become inoperative, unless and until a man can get another job. Does anybody believe that, having been subjected to the humiliation of a dismissal for this reason, it is likely to make that individual any more amenable to an attachment of income if he should be able to get another job?
I have no sympathy with the individual. If that were the only difficulty, and if the only person who would suffer would be the individual and it would be possible to collect the money in this way, I should be perfectly happy. But can we afford—or dare we run the risk at this stage—to poison industrial relations in order to pass a Bill and introduce into the law a system which, in my view, because of its complications, is not likely to achieve the purpose which it sets out to achieve?
Finally, the nationalised industries were invited to speak. They said:
This would be regarded by employees as an interference in their private affairs, and there is a tradition in British industry that the private affairs of an employee are of no concern to the employer unless an action of the employee is detrimental to the business of the employer.
For all these reasons, I do not think the Bill is likely to work. This is precisely the argument which I advanced on the Bill which was sponsored last Session by the hon. Lady the Member for Devon-port, and which may have been a bit more extensive. I do not believe that it is possible to work it. There may be some other way. I heard the right hon. Gentleman say that he had had a long memorandum from the Inland Revenue saying that it was quite impossible to achieve this object through that Department. I hoped that the right hon. Gentleman might have examined that proposal a little further to see whether it was not possible to do it that way. If it were, the right hon. Gentleman would avoid the risk of poisoning industrial relations. Goodness knows, the economic position of the country depends on our having


the very best industrial relations. It is because I believe that the Bill will poison industrial relations and will not do the job that is intended that I oppose it.
I would make one little explanation as a result of something that was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale. When I interrupted the right hon. Gentleman in regard to what Lord Morton said, it was because I held in my hand a communication sent to me by the Married Women's Association in which they quoted what Lord Morton had said on this matter. I have a good deal of respect for the objectives which the Married Women's Association are trying to secure. I do not agree with all the things it does. When it sent me this document I did believe it would have correctly quoted Lord Morton. I am left in doubt whether the objectives of the Association are as pure as I thought they were originally.
It gives me no pleasure or satisfaction to oppose the Bill. I come from a working-class family and I have seen this kind of thing in action. I would like to help the poor unfortunate women, particularly those who have young children to bring up. Because I believe that the Bill will poison industrial relations and will not achieve the object which it sets out to reach, I would like very much to go into the Lobby against it. Unfortunately, there is a division of opinion on this side of the House, as there is on the Government side. Therefore, I shall not vote against the Bill.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I could say a great deal about this Bill, and on various occasions in the past I have expressed my view upon similar proposals which have been put forward in preceding Sessions of Parliament, but on this occasion I am going to be very short, because I have addressed the House on a number of occasions in past years on this proposal; I also addressed the Standing Committee in the last Session of Parliament on a very considerable number of occasions and fully explained my attitude to the Measure which was then before us.
I do not wish to repeat what I have said in previous Sessions, however much in order that might be. My view on the Bill we have before us today is unchanged

from that which I entertained about previous Bills moved by unofficial Members to the same effect. I personally am not an employer of men and, therefore, I shall not be affected by the provisions of this Bill, but I think those who employ men and wage earners themselves, because, of course, the Bill is primarily concerned with wages—other forms of income have long been attachable—will be deceiving themselves if they think the number of orders made under this Measure will be infinitesimal. It will be very substantial, because collecting officers will use this Measure whenever they can.
I do not know in what shape the Bill will finally leave this House, but I shall be very surprised if it is not the case that an application for payment of arrears is always treated, on the initiative, usually, of the clerk, as an application for an attachment order under this Measure provided there are four weeks in arrear. So this will become a very common procedure. I am no expert in the law of Scotland, but I am told that the procedure there is different and much less convenient and that is the reason why there are few attachment orders in respect of maintenance made in that country. I believe they have to be renewed very frequently, whereas here orders made will continue to run as long as the man remains in the same job.
Even in the case of a large employer that would lead to serious inconvenience, but in the case of a smaller employer, a shopkeeper employing one man, it would be a great inconvenience, because he would have to make the deduction every week—which is rather an unpleasant matter in itself—and send it to the collecting officer. He has not merely got to comply with a straightforward order telling him to deduct 15s. 6d., 30s. or whatever the sum is each week and to send it to the collecting officer, but to do a calculation, because there are two alternative methods of assessing the sum to be sent. The sum to be sent may easily be different every week. That is quite possible. In many cases it will change frequently. He has to do that calculation, which may be simple enough for those skilled in such matters, but I am bound to say that although I gave plenty of attention to the Bill introduced in the last Session I was not sure at the end how that sum was worked out.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said he was hoping to prepare an explanatory leaflet. He had better put in a good stock of them, for I am afraid that many quite sensible people will find it very confusing to work out that calculation. If we do not have the calculation, we are reduced to the position the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) mentioned, where one could have a man going home with only £2 in wages because of deductions taken from his wages under this Measure. That is the purpose of the alternative assessment, to safeguard the minimum amount.

Mr. Sorensen: Does not the hon. Member realise that even if part of the man's money were not deducted in this way he would still suffer in exactly the same fashion and have £2 left if he simply paid up?

Mr. Bell: The hon. Member misses the point. I was saying that in order to avoid a position in which a man would have only £2 of his wages left the Bill contains machinery to ensure that if his wages fall below a certain point the amount to be deducted will be reduced proportionately each week. The hon. Member's intervention could have only the meaning that he thinks that the machinery should not be in the Bill. I do not know. I am not expressing an opinion about that. The machinery is in the Bill. All I am saying is that the employer, large or small, wise or foolish, has to work that out every week and that it is a considerable burden for some men, even if not for all.
An assurance was given, as it had to be given, that this was not the beginning of a long process. I have not been in the House for many years—seven or eight—and what I say is without reference to persons at all. Looking back over the past, my experience is that Ministerial assurances are short-lived compared with the life of a law once it has left the House and been put into operation. One classical Ministerial assurance was given in the 19th century about the counterfeiting of stamps. The Minister who introduced the Bill into the House gave his assurance that it would strike only at the man who was a fraudulent counterfeiter of stamps. Only a few years later a printer of stamp albums was prosecuted successfully under that Act because he had made reproductions of the stamps for the public,

and the Divisional Court, presided over by the Lord Chief Justice, expressed the opinion that the constable who had brought the exhibits to the court to prove the offence was himself guilty of the offence for having them in his possession. That is a mild illustration of the value of Ministerial assurances in these matters. I am sure that they are given in the best of faith and that the intention is to observe them, but the fact is that as time passes one thing leads to another.
We have been invited to accept this proposal with open arms because this practice is adopted in Scotland. It is not used very much in Scotland because of the inconvenience of the procedure there, which is a little different from that in the Bill. Furthermore, as has been said, in Scotland they also attach wages for everything else, and I do not think many hon. Members would like to see that in England.
I have heard it said that the prohibition of the attachment of wages is an anachronism in the present system of society. Perhaps it is when we have full employment, but it would not look much of an anachronism if economic circumstances changed, as they do from time to time, and this protection against the attachment of wages had been swept away.
What is proposed in the Bill is merely that wages should be attached for a wife's maintenance, but in the last century another Bill was introduced to make it possible to attach wages for debt. It was said, "Salaries are attached, and savings and bank balances are attached. Why not wages? It is difficult to see any sensible reason why wages should not be included." After thirty-six years, however, the Government introduced the Wages Attachment Abolition Act, 1870, which said, in the recital, that whereas inconveniences had arisen as a result of this practice, it was enacted that the practice should no longer take place. In other words, we have tried the attachment of wages within relatively modern times. After being tried for a generation, it was abolished because it was found to be too dangerous, too damaging.
So I would say to the House it is all very well, and we can take these limited steps, we can support ourselves with assurances, we can be quite confident that we are going just so far and are not going too far, but it will not be easy when today


has gone, when this Session of Parliament has gone and this Bill is on the Statute Book and perhaps some years later some other proposal, a plausible one doubtless, is put forward which will take us farther, perhaps not very much farther, along this road.
Say council house rents are in arrear. A man earning good money owes a debt to a public authority. We already take from his wages Income Tax, National Insurance contributions, his wife's maintenance. Why not arrears of rent owed to a public authority? Is that unreasonable? Why not arrears of rates? How much are rates different from tax which we deduct? So once we depart from the clear line we embark upon a very serious course of conduct. There I leave that.
So much for the danger which, I think, is clearly apprehended on both sides of the House. What are the advantages of this Bill? The figure of £7½ million was mentioned, and I must in fairness say that I was not here at that part of my right hon. Friend's speech, and so I do not know what qualifications he mentioned.

Mr. A. J. Champion: A lot of qualifications.

Mr. Bell: I must be careful not to say anything which would be unfair. But I have had an estimate, the source of which I cannot disclose, but which I think is a reliable one, that the possible saving from a Bill like this would be about £500,000 a year, and the rest of the £7½ million is to be applied to different matters, such as when a husband is dead or is lost sight of, and so on. If that financial aspect of the matter has affected the minds of hon. Members, I should like them to have in mind that figure of £500,000 as well as the one of £7½ million.
What sort of people is the Bill to catch? It will not catch, as has been pointed out, the really rebellious man. It is a much smaller thing to change one's job than it is to go to prison. I know that now my own argument that economic circumstances may change can be taken against me on this score, but let us accept things as they are for the time being, and changing a job is a small matter nowadays. It is easy.

Miss Margaret Herbison: In some places.

Mr. Bell: It would be more correct perhaps to say in some places it is not; but on the whole it is, and a man who has been willing in the past to go to prison rather than pay will not find it difficult to change his job rather than pay under this Bill.

Mrs. Jeger: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why a man does not change his job rather than go to prison now?

Mr. Bell: Because at present changing his job would have no bearing on whether he went to prison or not.

Mrs. Freda Corbet: But he can disappear now.

Mr. Bell: With all respect to the hon. Lady, there is a considerable difference between changing one's job and disappearing. The second course is much more drastic and much more difficult than merely changing one's employment.

Mrs. Corbet: But if a man changes his job he does not necessarily disappear, and if he is in employment he can be discovered and be held liable once more.

Mr. Bell: Yes, but I was just about to say that under this Bill, as under previous Bills, an order is not transferable if a specific order is addressed by the court to a specific employer. It must be so, as otherwise he could not be punished for disobedience. We cannot make a court order transferable like 10s. notes, and if the man changed his job the order would die. It is true that the procedure could then be started all over again and a new order obtained, but I am quite sure that the hon. Lady will see that the man would not have to change his job unduly frequently before the wife abandoned that particular procedure.
Therefore, I think it fair to say that this Bill will catch only the man who is in regular employment. Indeed, when this proposal first came before the House, introduced by the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill), she did put in her Bill the express words that it should apply only to those men who were in regular employment. Although those words have been left out of subsequent drafts they are, nevertheless, implicit in the nature of the Measure.
I cannot help feeling that this Bill will primarily catch the man who, through sickness or inadvertence, falls four weeks


in arrears. I know that it is a Committee point, but I think that four weeks is a drastically short time and quite unsuitable as the qualifying period to launch this procedure on a man. I know that the Bill is discretionary here and that the magistrates need not make one of these orders, but I strongly suspect, not being without some knowledge of these things, that when there are four weeks' arrears the order will he made in almost every case. In my opinion, it is just one of those things that will happen.
If, in fact, the Bill is to attach only the earnings of the man in regular employment—and primarily the man who is inadvertent or sick—then the merit that we have to weigh against the disadvantage is not very high. When I spoke during the Second Reading debate on the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Miss Vickers) and during the Second Reading of the right hon. Lady's Bill, I pitched my case no higher than I do now.
I said then, and I say now, that there is a clear balance of advantages here. There is real hardship in the case of the women who are left without maintenance. There is some advantage—some to be derived on their side from the Bill. There is also a considerable detriment—a possible detriment, perhaps—on the grounds I described in my opening remarks.
Each hon. Member has to weigh that balance of advantage for himself, as I certainly have. Naturally, I have not changed my views just because this is now a Government Bill. I hold the same view, for the same reasons. Obviously, had there been a Division I could not have given my support, and it is right that I should take the opportunity of telling the House where I stand. It is a serious matter; not one that the House should embark on lightly. I can only offer the House my own view, which is that this will turn out badly and that we shall regret having done it—if, in fact, we do it.

10.39 p.m.

Mr. Charles Pannell: The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire. South (Mr. Ronald Bell) can claim complete consistency. I have heard his earlier speeches on this subject, and I might say that in conversation with him—and I know that he will not mind my saying this—he has echoed some of his own misgivings. To that I ally the fact

that I have this year been 39 years a member of my own trade union. That trade union has a unique experience with regard to the Truck Act, and certain provisions of the 1897 Act still apply.
As a shop steward, I can remember cases of apprentices being charged for breaking drills and the like. That still applies. So long as a notice is prominently displayed the pay packet can be breached. Because of all that sort of thing, I might say that initially, all my prejudices were against this Bill. But the hon. Gentleman is on weak ground, though I respect his general argument, when he refers to extension of the principle to council house rents. I should have thought that a tenant in possession of property to whom an order could be given to vacate that property is in a weak enough position under the present law and there would be no need to extend it there at all.
My hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones), whose service to the trade union movement I very much respect, was on weak ground, I thought, when he spoke about worsening industrial relations because 2,000 people under the present law may go to prison. I do not think this Bill is needed in that respect. In any case, when I consider the upset in a big engineering factory today over the question of the pricing of a job and the enthusiasm of wage fixers, to say nothing of the enthusiasms of foremen, this is really nothing at all.
Before I proceed, I should like to say that I think we should be grateful to the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport (Miss Vickers) for what she did and for her enthusiasm, if I may say so, without any wish to be patronising to a comparatively new Member. She was pitched in at the deep end. I do not think she received all the support she might, not thinking so much of the support of the Joint Under-Secretary but rather of the support she might have had from the Patronage Secretary in looking after her fortunes a little better. It was rumoured that she had picked her Bill instead of moving a Measure to abolish capital punishment, and she landed herself in a great deal of punishment. She ran into some difficulty on her own Front Bench and, as a simple act of justice, the Home Office should have taken the Bill off her hands.
I represent West Leeds, and in West Leeds we have the Armley Gaol. As a matter of fact, the inmates there are some of my most grateful constituents. I have looked at some of these characters whom this Bill is supposed to disadvantage. On 9th December, which is the last date for which I could get figures, 58 men were in prison in that gaol serving terms of imprisonment in default of payments under maintenance orders made by magistrates as defined in the Bill. I find that, during the twelve months ended 8th December, 709 such men were received and a further 54 had a warrant of committal for default lodged against them while in prison for some other reason. These figures do not include those who have been committed on default of maintenance payments by the High Court. If the figure is rather small, that is because, for sentences in excess of 28 days prisoners are taken to another prison, namely Wakefield Prison, in the constituency which used to be represented so illustriously by the father of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood). That figure of 709 in the one gaol can be set against the daily average in that prison, according to the last figures I can obtain, of 810.
I have been round Armley Gaol, and I have noted the number of men, three, in a cell. Nobody entering that gaol will be elevated. [Laughter.] I can honestly say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens), who is an ebullient personality, that even he would be depressed by it. Despite all the schemes which have been put forward, such as painting the cells in different colours and all that sort of thing, I cannot really say that Armley Gaol is the sort of place I should want to go to. A man must hate his wife pretty much if he is prepared to go there. I would like to add a provision to the Bill to the effect that anyone before the courts should be taken round on a visit to the place and told—"Or else…" [Laughter.] Speaking seriously, the idea that people should go into gaol at all is frightening, and anything that the Home Secretary can do to keep people outside those places is to be commended.
I come to the trade union attitude to this question, about which I had to search my conscience more than somewhat. First, I should state that trade unions are

not ends in themselves, any more than the Labour Party is an end in itself. It is a means to an end. It serves certain mighty purposes. There is a tendency among bodies like the Trades Union Congress to defend an ancient heritage rather than look towards a more glorious future. They probably play for safety. I remember that the Trades Union Congress dragged their feet on the question of family allowances, but they accept the idea today.
There is nothing infallible about the Trades Union Congress, and I do not believe in infallibility anyway. But, at any rate, the ends that the trade union movement serves are the ends of human dignity, the security of family life and the protection of the weak. In effect, the trade union movement serves to extend the principle of the preservation of family life. Here I am inclined to agree with the Roman Catholics, in that the preservation of family life is rather more sacred than the State itself because the family is older than the State.
The people who are disadvantaged by this Bill are not the sort of people who join the trade union movement anyway. Trade unionists pay their dues in order to extend the standards of decency, and I have defended the principle of the closed shop simply because I believe that people should pay their dues into a trade union week by week in order to maintain decent standards. What do we do when a man does not pay his trade union dues? We say, "You either pay them, or you get out.' In exactly the same way, I believe that what we do in order to get our hard-earned cash is a fairly good principle to apply to our own society—namely, that a man should face up to his obligations and should be made to pay if possible.
I am not satisfied that all these side issues which have been put in to show why this Bill would not work are necessarily relevant. I think that in our British way of trial and error we will make this Bill work as the years go on. Of course, there will be case law. Of course, there will be stupid people who will appeal as far as the House of Lords. Of course, there will be judgments which will make us scratch our heads from time to time, but I think the effect of the Bill, generally speaking, will be a reasonable threat or promise to defaulters—"Armley Gaol or else."
This Bill will deal with the non-unionists in our society—the defaulters, the escapists and, if I may use phraseology which some of my hon. Friends will recognise in ancient trade union practice, the people whom we call the knob-sticks, the black legs, the rats and the scabs, the sort of people who were defined by Jack London as the products of that fifth day creation on which the Lord made all creeping and crawling things.
The principle of our trade union movement is that every man should safeguard his own interest in safeguarding that of his fellow. We are dealing here with the type who believes in every man for himself and let the devil take the hindmost, which is the philosophy of rank capitalism and has still a hangover on the other side of the House. These are defaulters on orders already made by magistrates. Nobody need be put in the position of having his wages attached. Only when other resources have failed are the provisions of this Bill brought into force. No one need come within its scope, except by his own neglect of his family and his failure to comply with the elementary decencies of life.
Have hon. Members ever been in the vicinity of a police court on a Friday and seen that pathetic procession of women who come and say, "Is there something for me?", hoping that money will have been paid into court? What happens if it has not? These wives abandon a proposed shopping tour for just the elementary necessities of life. They go round the corner for National Assistance, and we, from taxation, meet an obligation which somebody else should have met. That is what we are dealing with in the Bill. What right has any man to heap this sort of indignity on someone else? I have met trade unionists who have spoken against this sort of proposal but who, when faced with the hard fact of having a daughter up against this difficulty tell a different story altogether.
Those members of the trade union movement who can claim the greatest degree of knowledge of the problem are on the side of the Bill. He is not here now, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs) is an ex-chairman of the T.U.C. and has been a magistrate for 25 or 30 years. He is a well-respected chairman of the bench.

He must have been placed in that office because of his character, since that bench has a majority of people who support the party opposite. He is wholeheartedly behind the Bill, subject to certain assurances. One does not forget also my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Viant).

Mr. Ronald Bell: Mr. Ronald Bell rose—

Mr. Pannell: Does the hon. Member want to make another speech?

Mr. Bell: I have the utmost admiration for the right hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs), but the hon. Member will recall that that bench made an order against a husband without any ground at all, as a result of which members of the bench were defendants in an action which they successfully defended by pleading the Statute of Limitations.

Mr. Pannell: I suppose the hon. Member is speaking about some case he has lost.

Mr. Bell: Mr. Bell indicated dissent.

Mr. Pannell: My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West was a Labour candidate in his constituency as far back as 1918. Nobody on this side of the House would doubt his sagacity and experience and his lifelong devotion to the trade union movement at terrific sacrifice to himself.
Another point about the Bill in relation to deduction from wages is that the integrity of the wage packet has already been breached by P.A.Y.E. and by social insurance. And the next Labour Government will breach it for superannuation. Whatever the merits of these proposals may be, I should put the needs of a wife and children above the needs of the Income Tax man.
What is the experience of the trade unions? The other evening I spoke to the top official in Scotland of my union, the A.E.U., which has 240 branches and 90,000 members in Scotland. He told me that he had never had one letter on the subject of attachment, although he had held the job for many years. This matter had never been an issue. In fact, people had got used to the idea. Hon. Members may go round talking to women at the trade union branches, but let them go and talk to our women's sections and see what those women will tell them. That is another thing altogether.
It is easy to prate about principles and to forget about people. We have to con-skier people. I was associated with a Motion which was carried unanimously in this House on Friday, 16th May, 1952, on the subject of equal pay as between men and women in the public service and the rate for the job, irrespective of sex. The Resolution contained the words:
…recognising however that the position of those with family responsibilities must be assured.
That is the basis of our thinking. We may ask for men the rate for the job, and for women an equal rate for equal work, but normally the average man is married. We tend to think that, with marriage, rights disappear; but they do not. When we speak of standards for men as trade unionists we speak of the standards of women too. We should not allow the status of the married woman to drop below that of the woman in industry. As we get the emancipation of women, to which I have devoted a lifetime, we must think of the status of the married woman and not make it rather less than that of the single woman.
For all these reasons, I shall support the Bill. Together with my colleagues I shall ask for as many guarantees as we can possibly get in Committee, and shall see that the position of income as well as of wages is fully dealt with, if necessary by Amendments. In the last resort, we must trust during the lifetime of this Parliament to the assurance of the Home Secretary that this Bill will never, never be extended to anything else. Beyond that time I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman or the Government will have the job.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. John Parker: I congratulate the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport (Miss Vickers) on the big fight she put up in the Standing Committee for her Bill last Session, and the Home Secretary upon introducing the present Bill, which is a very big step forward indeed. Most hon. Members have had experience in their "surgeries" of cases that will be covered by the Bill and will be aware that here is one of the most serious gaps in our social services. I am pleased that we are to try to close it.
Several arguments which have been advanced require answer. I fully appreciate the point that none of us wants his

private affairs known to other people, particularly to his employer. I would remind my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) that if a man goes to gaol it causes far more trouble between himself and his employer than is likely under this Bill. Even under present arrangements when settling maintenance payments it is usual to ask the employer the income of the man concerned, so that the employer knows in most cases what is happening.
The private affairs of the wife have also to be considered. If she has to go for National Assistance her private affairs are certainly gone into in a way that is often more unpleasant than the proposed revelation of private affairs between employee and employer at the present time.

Mr. D. Jones: Surely they have already been revealed to the court and going to National Assistance will not make any difference?

Mr. Parker: In either case her private affairs have been gone into very fully and made public. I think the woman suffers rather more than the man in that instance.
I should like to see the Bill carried further in a number of ways, and I wish to ask a number of questions of the Joint Under-Secretary who is to reply to the debate. I understand that wages and salaries are covered by the Bill and also pensions, but what exactly does "pensions" mean? Does it mean only State pensions? Does it mean annuities if a man has made arrangements for an annuity? What exactly can be brought into the picture under pensions—a private pension scheme as well as a State pension? I take the view that all kinds of income should as far as possible be included.
I cannot understand why merchant seamen are left out of the scheme. Some years ago I worked on the Merseyside Social Survey. It was in the middle of the depression when more than half the seamen were out of work. The various shipping companies allowed the wives, by an arrangement with the Seamen's Union, to collect a regular part of their men's wages each week. If there were questions of a maintenance order in those days arrangements could be made for that to be collected by the wife from the shipping company's office. That was an arrangement between the union and the


companies, and I believe it still continues in the industry. I should think it would be an advantage to bring that into the law and not merely to have an arrangement between the union and the employers. I ask that that point be looked at and some reasons given why seamen are not at present to be included.
I realise the difficulty about including the self-employed, but I think an investigation ought to take place to see whether they can be brought in in some way. I should have thought this was a case in which Income Tax information might he collected. Most self-employed pay Income Tax and the information could be obtained from the collectors. I agree that a self-employed man, whether a professional man or a shopkeeper, is least likely to go to prison and more likely to be affected than anyone else if he did. Probably at the moment the threat of jail keeps him up to the mark more than other people. It is felt to be unfair if a certain class is thought to get away with it. Although there may be difficulties about that group, if it can be covered it is better that it should be done.
I should like an addition to the Bill to the effect, that if a man goes to prison that does not cancel the debt. If even under the new arrangements a man goes to prison, that still cancels the debt so far owing. It would be an advantage if it did not cancel the debt. If that works in Scotland, why should it not work here? I should like that question looked at as well.
Then there is the question of "flitting" even between England and Scotland and Wales. What happens if a person ordered to pay under this Bill in England moves to Scotland? What happens if someone covered by the present Scottish law comes from Scotland to England? Does he still have to pay? I would have thought some mutual arrangement could be made to cover that kind of case. I am told that in Northern Ireland it is possible to collect maintenance orders which have originally been ordered by the courts here.
It is provided under the Bill that Northern Ireland shall not be precluded from passing a Bill to cover similar purposes. I would have thought it desirable that if that happens there should be an arrangement whereby if a man "flits" to Northern Ireland or vice versa all such orders should be mutually enforceable.

What about the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands? If a person wants to be awkward he can go there. We are seeing it in other connections in Scotland at present, and I would have thought there was a case generally for sorting out the arrangements for enforcing the law in the different parts of the British Isles.
Finally, there is a question about the Republic of Ireland. Many of my constituents come from there, but I do not think many of them would go back to try to avoid their obligations because the difficulty of finding work there is so great. But it might well be that one could have people coming here from Southern Ireland and leaving their families there, or coming here and raising a family and then going to some other part of the British Isles and leaving the family. I would have thought that once we had this Bill working in this country it would be possible to have some arrangement about it with Southern Ireland, and that might be extended to other social services. It might well be an important point in the years to come. I would like to ask the Under-Secretary to look into the whole question of possibly "flitting" to some other part of the British Isles in order to avoid obligations.
It is a fact that in both the United States and Canada the law varies on this question in all the different States and provinces, and it certainly leads to quite a lot of "flitting" to avoid obligations. With the ease of travel that has now come along there is a danger of the same kind of thing happening within the British Isles, and we should see whether some arrangements could be made to cut out that difficulty.
In conclusion, I hope the Bill becomes law. I am sure the House will do its best to try to get it into law as soon as possible.

11.9 p.m.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: I should like briefly to pay tribute to the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport (Miss Vickers) to whom the House and the country are indebted for the great efforts she has made which have resulted in this Measure being brought forward. I am sure the Bill we are considering is all the better for the time and thought that was given to the earlier Measure which was introduced as


a Private Member's Bill. I think, too, that we all appreciate the exquisite sense of equilibrium with which the two Front Bench speakers tackled the difficult job of recommending this Bill.
It is right that Parliament should approach this Bill with some hesitation, because, after all, we are legislating about something which touches people's deepest emotional lives, on the one hand, and affects their money on the other. When one has both those considerations in one piece of legislation it is obvious that we have real dynamite to deal with, But it has been very interesting that no Member who has dealt with this Bill tonight, whether supporting or attacking it, has expressed complacency or any satisfaction with the position as it is at present. Therefore, we must start from the point that we cannot go on as we are.
A reason which has not been mentioned is that the present situation is grossly unfair to the thousands of men who make a big struggle to keep up their maintenance payments and who make payments regularly, often by great self-sacrifice. They accept their responsibilities, but they see other men avoiding them and getting away with it, and they have a deep sense of social injustice.
I must emphasise the complete bankruptcy of a system which sends men to prison for debt. The Home Secretary referred with great emphasis, which we all appreciated, to the eroding effect of prison life on these people. I say to my friends and colleagues in the trade union movement that if they are concerned with the status and welfare of the worker, surely the biggest contribution which they can make is to keep him out of prison, because nothing destroys a man's self-respect and his employability more than a prison sentence. Often an employer does not stop to ask for what offence the man went to prison; the fact that he has been in prison is enough to bar him from employment by many firms.
As I said, we are trying to legislate about affairs which concern people's emotional lives fundamentally, and that is one of the big difficulties. A happy marriage is a supreme human experience. I only wish that by legislation we could do something to make it a more widely shared experience. When a marriage breaks down, however, it is not the job

of Parliament to apportion the blame. Often the breakdown is not due to specific faults on one side or the other. Whatever the reason for the failure, I do not believe that the breakdown of the marriage gives either party the right to transfer privately contracted responsibilities to the community.
There may be many measures which we should consider about our marriage laws, particularly about the administration of matrimonial jurisdiction in the lower courts. Many constructive social measures could be taken to prevent some of these marriages from breaking down.
We are here considering the casualties, however, and I think it is Parliament's responsibility to try to deal constructively with those casualties. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) that it would be an improvement if a prison sentence did not cancel out the debt, but that is beyond the scope of the Bill because it would have to apply to debts in general. While under present legislation debt is cleared by a prison sentence, we cannot make exceptions for debts of this kind.
In looking at the present situation and the difficulties with which we have to deal, we have not so far mentioned the loss of time from work of men who are summoned and the amount of time which is spent in the courts by professional people, by probation officers and others in trying to sort these cases out, nor have we mentioned the fact that it costs a woman £1 to take out a summons. When that has to be paid at a difficult time for her, it is often a serious matter.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) that there are men who feel so bitter about the breakdown of their marriages that they will go to any length rather than support their wives and families, and I think we must accept it that the Bill cannot be 100 per cent. successful. The fact that it will not be 100 per cent. successful, however, seems to be a very poor reason for not trying to do anything to help in certain cases. I believe that we shall find the Bill helpful in a larger number of cases than some of my hon. Friends suggest.
When a man says that he would rather go to prison than pay, because of his sense of grievance and bitterness, we must ask ourselves whether a citizen should have the right to opt to go to prison


and to be kept at the expense of the country rather than shoulder his personal and voluntarily accepted responsibilities. I think we need a completely fresh approach which will destroy the right of the citizen to opt to go to prison for a period of his life, however uncomfortable it may be, at the country's expense, leaving his family to be a burden on the community.
This debate has reminded me of the fact that in the days when some of us were struggling for equal pay it was always said by our opponents that men had to keep their families and, consequently, they should receive more than women. Those who put forward that theory should be consistent. They should look upon the man's wage as the family's wage; as the pool upon which the whole of the family has a right to draw.
A point has been made about the amount of money spent by the country in keeping these wives and children. I understand that there are 70,000 women separated from their husbands and maintained at £7½ million a year. It is also contended that many of these women are elderly and that there will therefore be no sizeable reduction as a result of this Bill. But 26,000 of them have small children, which is a large proportion. Moreover, the figure of £7½ million refers only to married women and does not include unmarried mothers who are being maintained, with their children, on National Assistance payments. I am informed that the total figure is about £10 millions.

Mr. D. Jones: I was quoting from the 1956 Report of the National Assistance Board, which states that 40 per cent. of the total have husbands who are dead or are on retirement pensions. So the figure may be less than £7½ million.

Mrs. Jeger: My point was that 26,000 of these women have children of school age. My hon. Friend made a very sincere speech about interference with the rights of the workers, but I think one must ask him and those of his colleagues who share his views to bear in mind that this Bill is not in any way intended to be used for the collection of maintenance money. Many of the speeches to which we have listened tonight seemed to suggest that the purpose of the Bill was to enable maintenance money to be deducted from wages. That is not so. As I understand

it, the Bill is only for the collection of maintenance arrears. Until a man falls into arrear this Bill will not affect him in any way at all. I do think we must have that absolutely clear.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Once he has fallen into arrear this Bill becomes an instrument for collecting maintenance money, as well as the arrears.

Mrs. Jeger: Yes, I think that it would help the debate if I accepted the assistance which the hon. Gentleman has given me. I read the Bill as meaning that the man who has fallen into arrear will come within its scope. It then "stays on his tail", but he can, as I understand it, apply after a period of regular payments for discharge. He can avoid ever being caught by the operation of the Bill by making his payments regularly. It is that incentive which is the most important advantage of the Bill. We want it to be a deterrent. I do not look upon it as a trap to embroil innocent people.

Mr. Niall MacDermot: There is a provision in Clause 8 entitling the husband to apply for the discharge of the order, but how is he to be able to satisfy the magistrates that in future he will be a good payer when all his payments up to then will have been made as the result of the order by deductions by his employer from his wages?

Mrs. Jeger: That is a question which, I hope, my hon. Friend will put in Committee if he has the honour to be asked to serve on the Committee.
I was about to say that because of these difficulties and the very fine balance of judgment on the Bill, a very heavy responsibility will fall on the Committee considering the Bill. A number of us on this side have certain doubts about various Clauses. I myself am particularly concerned whether four weeks is the ideal period, but all these things can be considered in Committee, and the House will be making a real contribution to social justice by giving the Bill a Second Reading tonight.
We have so far debated the Bill upon an assumption that it is the husbands who must always pay. I would remind the House that in the Annual Report of the National Assistance Board for last year there was one case—it is true there was only one—in which the Board sued a wife for maintenance of her husband The wife had a private income and her


husband had no money. She had deserted him and the National Assistance Board took the case to court and a maintenance order was made against the wife. I mention it because I should not like hon. Members to think this is in any way at all a feminist issue. I hope that the wives who hold the purse strings will have to face their responsibilities equally with the husbands whom we wish to face theirs.
In spite of the reservations and doubts which have been expressed, I hope the Bill, after the further careful consideration which I know it will have in Committee, will without long delay become part of the law of the land.

11.23 p.m.

Mrs. Freda Corbet: The hon. Lady the Member for Devonport (Miss Vickers) thanked me for the part I played in Committee on her Bill. I must confess that it was a part of almost complete silence. I was actuated by the motive which often induces me to advise my friends in our work in another assembly to say nothing in order that business should proceed more swiftly and valuable decisions may be more swiftly effected. That policy did not succeed in Committee on the Bill in the last Session, but not because of the silence of my hon. Friends, and I regret, having heard some of them speak on this subject tonight, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), that they did not take a more vocal part in Committee on that other Bill, for had they done so we should have had a much livelier and merrier time in the Committee than we did.
I must say that all my precautions did not enable us to withstand the magnificent exertions of my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) and the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), whose ability to speak went to enormous lengths. They produced great powers of oratory, often, I thought, about nothing. I was looking forward to an opportunity of using the same tactics on them in any Bill they might bring forward, but it may be that if the Standing Orders are changed I shall not have that pleasure.
Having listened to the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South this evening, I must say that I feel that this step we are taking is a very serious one. Although I

have been convinced of the rightness of this for perhaps 23 or 24 years—and in that time have run against precisely the same kind of objections from the same quarters—I still feel that it is right that the House should take this matter into its very serious consideration.
Let me give one example of how this could spread. It is perfectly true that for arrears of rent a landlord, whether a private landlord or a local authority, can turn out the tenant. That usually has a very salutary effect on tenants, but there is a small, hard core of what are called "problem" families. They do not pay their rent and are eventually turned out. There is no alternative. It must be a great temptation indeed for the social worker and all those with feelings of humanity to try to prevent that family—and it is not the man, but the wife and children—from being turned out of a happy home and put into an institution. We shall, therefore, have to be very careful to see that the humane instincts of the social worker do not take us further than we ought to go.
As for creditors, the business man can take care of himself. He knows well enough when he has a bad customer, and he will refuse to supply the goods. He knows, too, that bad debts are a part of business expenses. That being so, the kind of things for which the Scottish law provides in relation to debts would not normally worry most of us in this House.
I say to those who have expressed their fears, that those of us who have for many years advocated attachment would stand most firmly and resolutely against any extension of that principle. We stand by the principle of saving men from prison and of helping the unfortunate families concerned. On the other hand, we want to see that men do not fail in the obligations of family life which the laws of society place upon them.
I have come across quite a number of men who have been very bitter about having to pay. I think they have been very rightly and justly bitter, and the reason for it is something which should be looked at. It is that in the original proceedings in the courts the man's case has not been made, and should have been made. I hope that we will pay some attention to the possibility of seeing that, when the original order is made, it is a just and a fair order; one that a man


can feel is reasonable and which he can afford to pay.
I think we can discount the points that have been made about employment. From the figures that have been quoted tonight, it is quite obvious that any one employer would have only very few cases to deal with. In these days, I do not believe that any employer will mind. We all know of the expensive welfare work which is done among employers today. I talk very often to employers who tell me of very intimate details concerning the lives of their employees and of how they try to help them. In many big works there are welfare workers whose job it is to know what it is that perhaps makes a man a little lax in his work, what it is that is making him off colour or making him perform his work less well than he used to do. There is tremendous care taken today in the welfare and family lives of employees. A week or two ago I had a letter from an employer asking me to do my best to find a new dwelling for a man whose wife's state of nerves was so bad that the man himself could not concentrate on his work. I am sure that all hon. Members constantly receive letters of that kind from employers.
I am sure that hon. Members can rest happy in the knowledge that employers will find quite quickly that they can absorb the one or two cases with which they will have to deal. I do not believe that the fears which have been expressed will prove well-founded. Many an employer will do all he can for an employee rather than lose his services, and that is something we should not ignore. There are key men whose jobs cannot be performed if they are absent from their work. Many employers will take all kinds of steps to ensure that key employees do not go to prison, with all the dislocation that their absence would entail. From the point of view of the man himself, could the job be held for him while he goes to prison for a month or six weeks? The job must be done, and, when he comes back, somebody else will be doing it and he must go elsewhere.
We must consider in Committee the point made by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South about the man flitting off and fresh orders having continually to be taken out by the wife. It ought not to be beyond our wit to pro-

vide that, once an order is made, the name of any new employer can be inserted so that the direction can he transferred from one to another.
I hope that a great deal of attention will be paid to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham. If we are to do the thing at all—and I hope that the House will pass the Bill in all its stages—we must make it as effective as we possibly can. I wish the Bill all success, and in conclusion, I can only say that I congratulate the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport, for having initiated the Bill in its principal early stages. I only wish that it might have fallen to my luck in the ballot to be able to introduce such a Bill as she did in the first instance.

11.34 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Robens: The Joint Under-Secretary who has sat in his place during the whole of the debate, will be left in no doubt that the House as a whole approaches the problem with a tremendous amount of sympathy for those women and children who are left in the very difficult position described so adequately and dramatically by many speakers this evening. At the same time, he will have observed that there have been at least two speeches against the Bill. If I may say so, without any wish to be patronising, they were two very well-balanced speeches, and none of us should take what was said in either of them lightly. I refer, of course, to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) and the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell).
Equally, it has obviously not escaped the hon. and learned Gentleman's notice that on all sides there have been a number of points raised which are probably Committee points, but it is right that they should have been raised in this debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) made clear, we shall not divide against this Bill. Therefore, I hope the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will understand that when the Bill is debated in Committee we shall not approach this Bill in any partisan way but we shall want to deal very carefully with many points that must be settled and which I shall not reiterate at this late hour.
I was very glad that the Home Secretary said that he would extend an invitation to representatives from the British Employers' Confederation and the Trades Union Congress, and I hope that appropriate letters will go out quickly and that both those bodies will meet with him, preferably together, to discuss many of the things that they have in mind as real objections to the Bill.
The British Employers' Confederation and the Trades Union Congress object to this Measure not entirely on the same grounds. The T.U.C. objection is a perfectly good one and has already been voiced in this House many times, even by those who support the Bill, and that is that they do not wish to see a break in the 1870 Act which made wages inviolate. We have accepted P.A.Y.E., National Health, National Insurance and deductions of that kind from wages, but we have not moved to the stage where we have really been prepared to accept within the ranks of the trade union movement any further inroads into the sanctity of the wage packet.
This is a real problem in the trade union movement, and whilst the assurances by the Home Secretary, which I hope will be reinforced by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary when he replies, will go a long way, it may well be that the talks that he proposes to have with the T.U.C. and the British Employers' Confederation will lead to some Amendments in Committee which might put this matter beyond any possible doubt.
The British Employers' Confederation also take the view that as employers they do not want to accept responsibility for the part of the machinery for collecting maintenance. They have their own business problems to contend with, and I am not referring only to the character of the work that is involved, because I do not regard that as terribly important; so few will be involved in this matter as compared with the large number of people who are gainfully employed. The employers just do not want to be brought into a matter which they regard, quite properly, as outside their employment responsibilities.
Therefore, the Home Secretary has been very wise to say that he proposes to talk with both these bodies. I think that he might—I hope he will before we go into Committee—examine once again whether or not the deductions could be

made under the P.A.Y.E. system. I know that there will be many difficulties about it, but I am also well aware that the Inland Revenue can rarely be persuaded to do anything other than collect taxes, and it strongly resisted this suggestion. But I am inclined to think that if this collection could be made other than through the employers by the attachment of wages, it would make the progress of this Bill, and particularly the progress of conversations, much more easy. I am not saying that that is the only way in which it should be done. I am saying only that that is the way which has been suggested in this House and in other quarters, and therefore it should be considered as a method of collection, without committing anybody one way or the other.
I am not greatly moved by the arguments relating to the number of men who are in gaol and the cost to National Assistance as I am concerned with the position of those women who are deserted, and particularly the children. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. L. Jeger) put the number at about 26,000. That is terribly important. This is a great social problem. There is not only the tragedy of children being brought up without the father in the home but there is the terrible economic difficulty which does not help to bring up children in the right atmosphere.
This is the one thing on which I, as a trade unionist of many years' standing, am prepared to let go my prejudices about touching the wage packet. I think it worth while to break the principle of the sanctity of the wage packet, because I am much more concerned about young people being compelled to grow up under difficult conditions. It may be that by means of the Bill we shall be able to prevent the worst effects on them of a broken family life.
There is no need for me to deal again with the many objections to these proposals which have been mentioned in debate, but I should like us all to address ourselves, if not now then certainly in Committee, to considering whether the Bill will really do the job that we want done. That is the test of the Bill. If we accept, as a result of the inquiries that have been made, that the Bill will affect 2,000 of the men who are now in gaol, I confess that that number is rather smaller than I had hoped. It means that


only about half of those who go to gaol will be affected.
As to the possibility of men changing their jobs continuously, I agree with the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South that things will be different if there is no longer full employment, but we must apply ourselves to the problem of dealing with the man who is prepared to dodge from employer to employer to escape his responsibilities. It is obvious that no woman can be expected to keep going to court for separate attachment orders. I hope that the Home Secretary and his Parliamentary Secretary recognise that this is something which we shall have to discuss very closely in Committee.

Mr. C. Pannell: I believe that, either prior to or soon after the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport (Miss Vickers) presented her Bill, we had a reply from the Home Secretary to the effect that it had been arranged with the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance to allow for inter-availability of information, which would help to solve that problem.

Mr. Robens: I remember some reference to that point, though my main recollection of the Committee stage of that Bill is of some long speeches by my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools and the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South. I hope that the Home Secretary will look into it further. It is an important point.
I do not press for clarification now, but I should like to know when it is possible for an individual who has had an attachment of earnings order made against him to be released from it. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) raised that important point. A person who goes to court to secure release from an order of this kind is not in a position to say. "I have been extremely good over the last twelve months, because I have paid regularly," since the payment will have been deducted from his wages. How are we to determine what are to be the conditions under which a man is to be released?
I am sure that none of us wants to see a situation in which there is an attachment to earnings order in force against a man for life. That would be wrong. I cannot see within the Bill how he, of his own volition, is able to persuade anybody that he has turned

over a new leaf and not to be given a second chance. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can say whether a time limit can be put on these orders, after which they could be reviewed. We must find a way to release a man. The Home Office could help us very much in this matter.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary say quite firmly whether Clause 3 (1) means that Order 45 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1875, applies wholly to the attachment of debts. If that is so, it removes from the field of criticism one objection that this is a class Bill for one section of the community. It must be an all-embracing Bill; no person should be able to escape. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will also be able to tell me that my interpretation is correct that Clause 3 (1) enables a garnishee order to be made against a person's banking account.
As an active trade unionist for many years, I was torn between the inviolability and sanctity of the wage packet and the way in which women and young children who are put in this position are treated. On balance I have come down in favour of the young children and the women. I cannot say that for the whole of my party. We shall give a Second Reading to the Bill and hope that we can make it so watertight in Committee that on Third Reading we can all agree that it is a very good Bill.

11.48 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. J. E. S. Simon): My first and paramount duty is to thank the House for the kind and constructive reception that it has given to the Bill. I entirely accept what the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) said, that the whole House has transparently approached the problem with sympathy for the women and children who are the primary beneficiaries, yet with a proper realisation of the serious problems which are raised. I include my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) and the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones). My hon. Friend is a personal friend of many years' standing. At one time we worked together in the same room.

Mr. C. Pannell: Not in the Standing Committee.

Mr. Simon: The hon. Member for The Hartlepools has been a political neighbour extremely agreeable and kind and,


I need hardly say, invariably completely fair. The whole House recognises in both cases that their qualities of heart acquit them of any lack of sympathy with the unfortunate women with whom the Bill is concerned.
I associate myself with what has been said in the way of congratulation to my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Miss Vickers) on her handling of her Bill. Although she was possibly disappointed in Committee, her Bill had a very big effect upon public opinion. It was actually during her tenancy of this theme that Lord Morton came out so clearly in support of the principle of the Bill, and we had the Report of the Advisory Committee on the Treatment of Offenders which abundantly vindicated the view she was putting forward and, as the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) pointed out, the unanimous recommendation of the Magistrates' Association, an extremely representative and experienced body in this field, also endorsing the principles of the Bill. One ought not to forget, in passing such encomiums, the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill), who blazed the trail in this field.
I think it would be invidious to remark on any particular speech made this evening, but, if he will forgive me, I should like to mention the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), because he and the right hon. Member far Blyth seemed to speak for the generous heart of the trade union movement, with the compassion which I think the trade union movement has always had for those on whom misfortune has lighted, those whom fate has oppressed harshly, wherever they may be.
I think it is true, as the hon. Member said, that there is a danger in any institution when it becomes successful—when it has arrived—that it should merely defend the privileges it has rightly fought for and achieved. I think the debate this evening, on the part equally of those who opposed this Bill and those who supported it, shows that that generous heart is still beating strongly.
I hope the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) will forgive me if I do not deal with the important points he raised, because I agree with the right hon. Member for Blyth that the Bill ought to be examined together in Committee and it

seemed that those were important points of detail.
I should like to refer to three preliminary questions before dealing with the main arguments against the Bill and those in favour of the Bill. First, I think it ought to be made clear that the Bill does not deal only with the collection of arrears. Not until there has been a default, and a default for four weeks in the case of a weekly order, can an attachment order be made. Even when there has been a default it is, of course, discretionary on the part of the court whether it shall make an order. The court is not bound to do so, and, obviously, in cases of misfortune and sickness it is unthinkable that it should do so, but when it makes an order, the order not only bites on the arrears, but also takes account of the current payments as they become due. I hope that that is an answer to the right hon. Member although it is, quite clearly, a problem we must examine further.
In the end, the attachment order will exhaust itself so far as arrears are concerned. The arrears will have been recovered and then there will have to come a time for the variation of the order. I should hope that a well-intentioned husband who had seen the errors of his ways could convince a court that he is willing to pay properly in future. The court, I suppose, might make a further order for the attachment of the lower sum, merely to recover the maintenance as it became due prospectively, but I do not see any difficulty where an honest man could convince a court that an attachment order should be lifted. I entirely agree with the right hon. Member that none of us desires to see an attachment order inuring for all time whatever the intention of the defaulter may be.

Mr. C. Pannell: The hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that if a man changes his occupation there has to be another order, which causes a break anyway. That may happen in the case of a man who wants to escape, but it seems a terrific burden that a man in regular employment as against the man who drifts from job to job should be disadvantaged. The hon. and learned Gentleman ought to think over this and perhaps have inserted in the Bill the provision of a period in which not only the wife can apply but the husband also.

Mr. Simon: There are, of course, objections to the proposal for automatic transfer of the liability from one employer to another, but I think there is a point arising out of what the hon. Member says, namely that if there is a change of employment the original attachment order is discharged, and if the man against whom the maintenance order has been made then pays maintenance regularly, without the attachment order, he would be in a very strong position to go to the court and claim that he could be trusted not to have an attachment order. I should have thought that in those circumstances the court would be reluctant to make any attachment order and it is most unlikely that it would do so.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about collecting through P.A.Y.E. I personally was very anxious, if it could be done, that it should be done that way, for the various reasons that he set out. We did find what seemed to us to be insuperable objections, but I will look at the matter again before the Committee stage.
Finally, a further point was raised by the right hon. Gentleman, about the tracing of husbands who shifted their jobs. The recollections of both the hon. Member for Leeds, West and the right hon. Member for Blyth were correct. In the Standing Committee there was nothing but long speeches from my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for The Hartlepools. But my right hon. Friend made a statement, on the lines that the hon. Gentleman stated, on Thursday, 6th June of this year, in which he stated the new policy—and that was not in connection with the Standing Committee.
May I now turn to the main matters which have been disturbing the House and particularly the two objectors to this Bill in this debate. The first is the argument about the "thin end of the wedge." I could not help calling to mind the sayings of two very wise men on this sort of argument. The first was Lord Cecil of Chelwood, who once said:
The British constitution is full of the thin ends of wedges that the good sense of the community forbears to drive home.
The other was a very great Judge, to whom counsel once addressed the argument of the thin end of the wedge, and the Judge immediately replied in his stately way:
I am rarely impressed by forensic forebodings of indeterminate future disaster.

I think the House of Commons also, with its sense of the practical, is not very much impressed by political forebodings of indeterminate future disaster; but I would reiterate what my right hon. Friend said in introducing this Bill. The Government have no intention of extending attachment for the enforcement of civil debt, or hire purchase, or fines, or in any way beyond the confines of this Bill.
The hon. Member for Rossendale asked what advice the Government would give the House if a Private Member brought in a Bill proposing to extend the principle of attachment. I am authorised by my right hon. Friend to say that the advice the Government would give would be to reject such a Bill. I am quite clear, and have always been clear, that this is a case by itself. As my right hon. Friend said, the hardship on the woman, the burden on the taxpayer, and the futility of putting the men in prison, put this in a class by itself.
But I think there is another reason. It arises out of the fundamental division of labour between a man and his wife. Largely, the wife stays at home, runs the home and brings up the children, and through that she releases the husband so that he can go out into the world and earn his salary or wages. Morally she is entitled to look to his earnings. Morally, they are the source to which she is entitled to look for her support, and her support and that of the children should be the first charge on them. That seems to me to put this debt into quite a different category from any commercial debt which may arise.
Again, as the right hon. Gentleman very properly reminded us, we are concerned here not only with the wife but with the children, who clearly have a right to look to the father's earnings for their support. In particular, we should not forget a comparatively large class of beneficiaries under the Bill—the unfortunate children who are born in a state of illegitimacy.
Next may I deal with the question whether this is class legislation? As I am advised and believe, Clause 3 (1) makes available to orders made in the magistrates' court—as it has always been available to orders made in the High Court—the great panoply of methods of execution which the law over the centuries has devised to see that men pay their judgment debts. I see that the right


hon. Gentleman had a book with which I was very familiar at one time, and with which I am no longer so familiar. I am sure that he is right when he says that that is the effect of Clause 3 (1).

Mr. MacDermot: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that nevertheless this would apply only to arrears and not to current payments? In other words, all the procedure of garnishee orders and charging orders can be used only to enforce an order for arrears and not an order for current payment.

Mr. Simon: The hon. Member is quite correct. As I understand the law, that is the position. That has always been effective to secure the payment of maintenance in the High Court. We are now making available to the magistrates' courts, just as we have to the High Court, the instrument of attachment of earnings, and that will apply to the salary of the managing director of the largest company in the land just as much as to his doorkeeper. We have ensured by that Clause that the rents which are due to a rentier can be attached; there is the instrument of the receiver. A bank balance can be attached by garnishee; goods and chattels by distress; shares by a charging order; Government stock by another method of execution, that of distringas; land by a very severe method, sequestration, for one can put in a sequestrator who can not only receive the rents and profits of the land but can take all the goods and chattels and all the personal property on it. The charging order in respect of shares is available not only to collect the income of the shares but also to take the capital to discharge the debt, or the arrears in this type of case.
The House will see that those are very effective methods for making the man of property meet his judgment debts. That applies equally to the case of the shopkeeper, about which I was asked. One can garnishee his bank balance or his trade creditors and his goods and chattels can be taken by distress. That has proved so effective a remedy that by and large where that type of property has been available the man will pay rather than attract these methods. The House will see how very unattractive it would be for a partner to have a receiver put into his partnership to receive his share of the

partnership profits. I am able to assure the House that there is no difference in the treatment of various sources of income, or capital, except in the sense to which the hon. Member for Lewisham, North correctly drew attention.
I should also like to deal with the point put by the hon. Member for The Hartlepools that this represents interference between the employer and the employee. Our view is that we believe that the threat existing here will, in most cases, make it unnecessary to issue an attachment order at all. That has been the experience in Scotland, and we see no reason why it should not equally apply in England. We believe, too, that the Bill will be effective in producing the result which we desire; and that, again, has been the experience in Scotland. As has been pointed out during this debate, there are some 1,500 arrestment orders made every year, but only thirty men go to prison. If we can achieve that sort of proportion in our society I think we shall be entitled to say that it represents a major advance, not only for the beneficiaries and their children but also for the men themselves; for who would not wish to see them kept out of prison?
The hon. Member for Leeds, West spoke about this, and I would ask him if it is in the interests of the trade unions to see their men in prison.

Mr. C. Pannell: The trade unionists about whom I was speaking are not, by their philosophy, the sort to be caught by this Bill. It is the Tory working men who are the sort.

Mr. Simon: I can only say that I am sorry that, after we have been in such close agreement throughout the evening, the hon. Gentleman has now forced me into violent disagreement with him.
The hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) made a valid point in her reference to welfare services. With the development of welfare and social services in industry, the matters about which we are speaking ought to be within the knowledge of the good employer. One might well get an extension of voluntary arrangements, such as operate in Sheffield, whereby the maintenance money is deducted. But this point has been made by many hon. Members, and I would ask, which is really the more serious—interference, as it is called, between employer


and employee with attachment of the man's wages, or sending him to prison? Although the point is a valid one in an abstract way, the interference is less serious than the alternative.

Mr. D. Jones: I made the point that the man is likely to get the "sack", whichever way we apply it.

Mr. Simon: I propose to deal with the likely cases which come under the Bill. Anybody can prevent an interference between the relations which a man has with his employer merely by paying the obligation which a court of law has ruled to be his due. Of course, it has been said that some men will do anything at all but pay. There are such men; we acknowledge that, but it does not mean to say that, as the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. L. Jeger) pointed out, we should not deal with the many men who will be susceptible to the operation of the Bill.
The Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders went into this matter with very great care and came to the conclusion that only about 12 per cent. of those who went to prison for non-payment had refused to pay on principle. It was thought that in the case of about 50 per cent. the attachment order system was well worth trying. In all cases, of course, we shall not be successful; but if we can keep say, only 2,000 men—the figure which has been used—out of prison and secure at the same time maintenance for their wives and children, then it is surely worth while.
I turn to deal with the argument that the original order is not always a fair one. One has to accept, of course, that there will be cases in which unfairness does result; not intentionally, I believe, but simply because justice in these courts, as in all courts, has to be done by human beings and so must be something less than perfect justice. That, however, does not mean that the orders of the court, even though less than perfect justice in some cases, should not be effectively enforced. After all, what logic is there in saying that magistrates' courts are so unfair that they should have the power to send a man to prison but not to attach his income? It simply does not make sense. If the system is unjust, that is a reason for amending it, but not a reason why it should be stultified.
Now I come to the strong case in favour of the Bill. We believe it will keep defaulters out of prison, and even if it keeps only 2,000 defaulters a year out of prison it will be well worth while. It will lead to substantial economy. It costs about £175,000 a year merely to keep that sort of man in prison. In addition there will be a substantial saving on National Assistance. It amounts to a vindication of the decrees of our courts of law and, therefore, as the hon. Member for Rossendale pointed out so rightly, conduces to the general maintenance of the rule of law.
As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth said, it will lead to the relief of suffering by people who have been hardly used. Consider the wife first of all. There is not one of these wives who has not been found by the courts to have suffered a matrimonial wrong at the hands of her husband. She has been deserted by him without cause, or he has failed to maintain her as he should and could have maintained her, or he has committed adultery, or has treated his wife with persistent cruelty. In addition to that, she has to have the heart sickness of knowing that the court which has made an order in her favour, which has said she and her children shall be maintained, is powerless to give effect to its decree. It does not take very much imagination to call to mind the misery and the despair these women go through.
Then there are the children, particularly the illegitimate children, with all the disadvantages they suffer as a result of being born, through no fault of their own, into that sort of condition. It is for those reasons, while again expressing my gratitude and the gratitude of the Government at the reception which the Bill, on the whole, has had in the House, that I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — LACE INDUSTRY (RESEARCH LEVY)

Draft Lace Industry (Scientific Research Levy) (Amendment No. 2) Order, 1957 [copy laid before the House, 18th November], approved.—[Mr. Erroll.]

Orders of the Day — RAILWAYS (CONISTON-FOXFIELD BRANCH LINE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Barber.]

12.14 a.m.

Sir Ian Fraser: It being after midnight, I express my thanks to the Minister who has stayed to answer my plea, and to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and the servants of the House and all who are inconvenienced. I shall be very brief.
Coniston Water is a beautiful lake in the north-west of England, and by it is the village of Coniston in which about 4,000 people live. Foxfield is a station on the main railway line about 10 miles from Coniston, and Foxfield and Coniston are joined by a branch railway line. There is concern lest this railway line should be closed, because it is said to be uneconomic.
We owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Rawdon Smith, the chairman of the Coniston Parish Council, and to others who have made available to us and to the public generally a very clear case against the closure of this railway. This case has been put to the transport users' consultative committee, and I understand that the Ministry—and the Minister will correct me if I am wrong in this—has been impressed by this case, and has put off its decision in favour of the British Railways for a few weeks.
It may, therefore, be wondered why I should think it necessary to continue to raise the matter. First, I did not know of that postponement of a decision until a few hours ago but, even so, I think it is important to make the case now so that it may go on record and that the Ministers may have the opportunity to consider it.
I preface my remarks by saying that we must realise that we have now entered an era in which the Government have determined—I think very rightly—that the railways shall pay their way. We all want railwaymen to have good wages and improving conditions of work, but not out of the taxes. If those things are to be brought about out of the earnings of the railways, it is not surprising that British Railways should look around to see

where they can save losses, or come nearer to making profits. One of the steps will be to close down the most uneconomic branch lines.
Nevertheless, I think that it is still the duty of the railways, as with all near-monopolies—and the railways are still a near-monopoly in spite of the competition of the roads—to serve the public, and to serve not only where it pays best. It remains the duty of every public service to be a public service, and, therefore, to operate in disadvantageous conditions and not to close every service or part of a service that is not paying.
Who should the Member of Parliament represent? Should he represent the taxpayers generally, or his constituents generally? In this matter, the British Railways are the big fellows. I think that the hon. Member should represent the small people—those in Coniston and Torver and thereabouts, who feel that they will be greatly hurt and damaged if the railway is closed; and the following very briefly, are the reasons why they think they will be hurt.
This is in the most beautiful part of the Lake District, and a great many visitors like to go there. It will clearly tend to diminish the number of visitors who can go, and go conveniently, with their luggage—sometimes big luggage—if there is not a railway to take them to Coniston.
Then there is agriculture and those who work in Barrow-in-Furness, a busy town nearby. It is convenient for them to go by rail right into the town where they work. There are those who have to go to hospital; the children who have to go to school. There are the mothers who like to take their babies in a pram when they go shopping. They cannot do that on a bus. There are those, whether they be school children, working men or visitors, who like to take bicycles. All those are reasons for requiring rail transport.
We have had a railway there for ninety-nine years. Next year, we would celebrate its centenary. This is not a propitious time to close it; rather should it be a time for celebrating a considerable occasion.
It is now said that road transport will take the place of the railway that it is proposed to close, but anyone who knows this district as I do—and I was there


only a fortnight ago, driving over these very roads—will know that those roads are narrow, twisting and dangerous. Some of them are only 13 ft. 6 in. wide, and neither big enough, wide enough nor safe enough to carry large buses. If one tries to put on more small buses, there will merely be a jam on the roads. When Donald Campbell goes to Lake Coniston to drive his "Blue Bird," motor cars may be seen, head to tail, on the roads for miles around, even though there is a railway. If the railway is taken away and more buses are put on, confusion will be worse confounded.
If the evidence is finally overwhelming and the railway must go, the Minister should improve the roads first. He should consider, therefore, what it will cost to improve the roads—perhaps £40,000 or £80,000. What will it cost to put on the much better road service? All these things must be weighed against the loss now made on the railway before a decision is made, not afterwards.
There is one other point I must make. Had it not been so late at night, my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) would have been here to make it rather than myself on his behalf, but he had to catch his train. Between the towns of Oxenholme and Windermere there is another little bit of railway, and it is proposed to close that on Sundays in the winter months. The same kind of considerations apply to this as apply in the case I have already put, and I do not wish to repeat them. My constituents and his have asked us to say that we hope that the closing of the line on Sundays may be stayed.
I ask the Minister to consider carefully what must be done about the roads. If, at the end of it all, everyone is satisfied that the railway must go, will he assure us that it will not go until after the roads have been put right? I ask the Minister also to see that a public inquiry precedes a major closure of this kind. It is not enough to say that the matter has been referred to the local authorities and to the transport users' committees. Those advisory committees are, after all, I do not say the creatures of British Railways, but they are appointed with the approval of British Railways. I would not say they are the consumers' men. They are rather the railways' men.

Something in the nature of an impartial inquiry should be instituted by Ministers before so drastic a step so gravely affecting many people in the district is taken.

12.23 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) on his eloquent advocacy of his constituents' grievances and anxieties. He is, of course, renowned for his care for his constituents in their very widely spread area, and I assure him that it is a pleasure for me to reply to him this evening, or, perhaps I should say, at this early hour of the morning.
I welcome his support for the Government's anti-inflation policy as it applies to the British Transport Commission and the railways generally. His comments have demonstrated, however, how narrow is the scope for the Commission in meeting his wish to keep open unprofitable lines generally and the Coniston-Foxfield line in particular.
Last year, the British Transport Commission made a loss of over £50 million, a deficit at present met by loans authorised under the 1957 Act, which moneys, of course are provided by the taxpayer. The Commission has a formidable task ahead to achieve solvency, and it is its hope and intention to do so under its modernisation plan by 1961–62. But it is clear that if the Commission is to give the nation the modern services needed at fully competitive rates without recourse to the taxpayer, it just has no alternative but to propose to close unprofitable lines. The alternative would be to carry them either on the back of the taxpaper or at the expense of other travellers.
I readily assure my hon. Friend that the Commission is always reluctant to close any line. No railway man would ever be willing to close a line if he could possibly keep it open. The Commission is very conscious of the value of these rural lines as feeder lines to the main lines, and is prepared to carry a fair amount of unprofitable traffic in that way. It has gone to much experiment to try to cheapen the costs of running these lines.
I have myself tried out the new experimental light diesel set, one of which is


running between Bletchley and Banbury in the same region of British Railways as my hon. Friend's constituency; this is one of the Commission's many efforts to reduce the running costs of these rural lines. Even so, whatever is done, some of them are bound to be really uneconomical and, of course, lines of this kind, which were built, as my hon. Friend says, about a century ago, when the railways really did have a monopoly, are facing very different conditions today.
I should say one word about the constitution of the transport users' consultative committees, because my hon. Friend has made a point about the need for a public inquiry and he evidently feels doubt about the independence of these committees. They are appointed by my right hon. Friend the Minister. There is a central committee which makes an annual report to the Minister and also sends its minutes and recommendations direct to the Minister as well as sending them to the Commission. There are nine area transport users' consultative committees. Their minutes and recommendations go direct to the Commission as well as to the central committee.
The membership is completely independent. They are representative of transport users generally—passenger transport, freight transport, and so on. Their members are men and women who are willing to give their time to do this work on a voluntary basis. They are public-spirited people who evidently have the interest of the community at heart, and we have every reason to be grateful to them. We leave procedure largely to them because we feel that in that way we shall get the best result.

Sir I. Fraser: If the appointment of these ladies and gentlemen is neither approved by British Railways, nor their procedure guided by British Railways, then I offer an apology to them. I thought that it was.

Mr. Nugent: Included in their membership on each of these committees is a representative of the Transport Commission, who is there, of course, to provide any information that they require and generally to assist them in any way he can to reach a fully considered conclusion. The usual procedure that these

bodies follow—they vary from one area to another—is to notify all local authorities in areas that are affected by proposals of this kind, including parish councils.
In this particular case, the North-Western Area Committee considered most carefully this proposal of the Commission to close the Coniston-Foxfield line, and appointed a sub-committee to sit at Coniston on 8th November last to hear the objectors. I am told that they attended in considerable numbers. There were present the representatives of no less than two parish meetings, four parish councils, two county district councils, the Lancashire County Council, the Lancashire Education Committee, and four other local public bodies; so I feel sure that my hon. Friend will recognise that the area committee concerned really has taken proper steps to see that those who will be interested or affected had a chance to attend and ventilate their concern and grievance.
As to the road, the Transport Commission had provisionally arranged with the Ribble Motor Service to run its bus service to replace the line if it were to close. It is true that the Lancashire County Council, which is the highway authority, is considering a weight restriction on the Broughton—Torver road, a classified road and a very narrow and tortuous one, and that if that weight restriction were introduced it could prevent buses travelling on it. To relieve the anxiety of my hon. Friend, I should say that such a restriction requires an Order which my right hon. Friend would have to confirm, and we would not confirm such an Order unless we were fully satisfied of its necessity.
Because of this doubt about the road, the area transport users' consultative committee decided, at its meeting last Tuesday, to postpone its decision on this case until its meeting in March next year. The committee hopes that, in the meantime, the doubts and uncertainties about the road can be cleared up, so that it can then take its decision with the whole position fully clarified. It is quite clear that the committee is fully aware of the various factors to which my hon. Friend has referred.
As to the future of the road, the initiative for its improvement lies with the Lancashire County Council. I know


from having seen its activities that it is one of the most active highway authorities in the country, and I am sure that it will take an imaginative view of its responsibilities here as elsewhere. I cannot say what priority we could give to a scheme for the improvement of this road. It must compete with all the other road schemes in the country, but I will undertake that my right hon. Friend and I will fully bear in mind the needs of the local

people, and the difficult local circumstances to which my hon. Friend has so eloquently referred, when we come to consider its merits. We shall certainly do our best to cater for the obvious problems of the neighbourhood.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-seven minutes to One o'clock.